Continued Round Up for this Week

Less regurgitation of things you should know, more attitude! :)

BIGOTED FLASHBACK
As my co-worker and friend Megin McDonell says on my Facebook page "hello? 1999? is that you? can you come and get your talking points, please, and take them back to your own century? thanks."

Apparently, we're going to have the debate about if Section 8 causes crime, again. What's so galling is that is that it is the landlord's responsibility to screen their tenants just like any other tenant and if they find the tenant to be a problem - for a reason other than that they receive Section 8 payments to help pay their rents - then it is up to them to deny them. What I find concerning about the police department's current desire to map where crime and Section 8 vouchers might line up, is that it presumes that Section 8 somehow causes the crime, instead of recognizing that maybe, just maybe, those are the only landlords they can get to to rent to them because the other units are too expensive or they are being discriminated against. Another facebook friend notes "Of course, there's never any drug use, alcohol related violence, sexual assault, battery, theft, etc. happening at other concentrations of government assisted housing in town, i.e. the University." Good point. The final craziness here is that the section 8 program has their own requirements from HUD related to felony drug offenses and qualification to receive benefits of the program. On a final note, the landlord they are using as their poster child here is not the greatest landlord and I hear many concerns about his dealings. And I do believe he is in violation of the ordinance based on his comments in this article and previous articles on this matter. My personal opinion - not "according to sources at the Madison Tenant Resource Center"

SHAPIRO OUT, MERCER IN
Wow. Somehow, I don't think this is a very good decision. First of all, I don't think they can just decide who replaces Shapiro, I'm pretty sure the council will vote on it. Second, I really hope that cooler heads prevail and someone talks some sense into the Tavern League - Mercer certainly hasn't used good judgment lately, if the Tavern League wants to further alienate themselves, this is a good step, if not, I hope they reconsider.

HOW'D I MISS THIS
What? 12 Monona Terrace employees lost their jobs? Why? Just trying to be thorough, randomly. Do you believe it?

WOW

"In many ways, progressive Madison resembles a European-style monarchy. The king is called the mayor, and the council is a group of his advisers."

That kind of nailed it. This council has a council leadership that is an arm of the mayor. It's like they forgot there is an executive and legislative branch. The Mayor has 10 staff people, the 20 council members have 2 to share among them. They also all mostly have full time jobs in addition to serving our community. The problem I see is that the Mayor doesn't have to have all this power. The council could elect council leadership that will represent the council's interests, not the Mayor's. The council could take more initiative and show some leadership of their own, both individually and collectively. The Council could work in a more democratic manner instead of letting three guys make all the decisions behind the scenes and then call things "compromises" when 3/4 of the council and none of the community were involved in the discussion. Sigh . . . I could go on, but I better stop . . .

BONE MARROW DONORS NEEDED

Marrow Donor Registration
Antonio Rieder Drive
Saturday, November 21
10am-3pm
At Centro Hispano

Antonio is an adorable 6-year-old from Guatemala who was adopted by a family in Madison. During the fall of 2009, he was diagnosed with the blood disorder aplastic anemia. Antonio’s best treatment may be a bone marrow transplant. The best match for him and other patients of color is an unrelated donor from the same ethnic group. That’s why his family is encouraging donors from all ethnicities to join the Be The Match Registry.

You could help save a life.

Contact Todd Coleman at (866) 702-HOPE Or todd.coleman@bcw.edu

LANDBANKING WORKSHOPS

On November 11th, the Madison Common Council took the historic step of setting aside $5 million to establish a city land banking fund.

But how exactly will land banking work here in Madison? The details are still being worked out, but there is one thing that we know for sure: we increase the likelihood that our land banking efforts will be successful if we do a good job of learning lessons from successful land banking programs in other cities.

Join us for a discussion with two of the nation’s most innovative land banking experts from Denver, CO. Aaron Miripol is President and CEO of the Urban Land Conservancy, a nonprofit organization with a mission of land banking, preservation and development of urban property for the long term community benefit. Joining Aaron will be Dace West, Co-Director of the City of Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships, which serves as a catalyst to leverage the best of Denver's public and nonprofit sectors to engage in innovative and collaborative work.

Aaron and Dace will share their experiences and help build our knowledge base around issues such as:

* Models of land banking, including Denver’s Urban Land Conservancy,
* Developing collaborative projects between city government and nonprofits,
* Incorporating neighborhood needs through Community Benefits Agreements,
* Creating successful transit oriented development.

Land Banking Workshops (same workshop both dates)

* Monday, November 30th, 6:30-8:30 PM, at the brand new Urban League Center for Economic Development & Workforce Training, 2222 S. Park St.
* Tuesday, December 1st, 9:00–11:00 AM, at the Madison Municipal Building, Room 260, 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd

Sponsored by the Center for Resilient Cities, Common Wealth Development, Housing Initiatives, Madison Area Community Land Trust, Project Home, Urban League of Greater Madison, and the City of Madison.

For more information, go to www.affordablehome.org/landbanking

Read more!

CDA Office Moving

Well, that merger went quick! Just kidding.

NOTICE OF CDA HOUSING OPERATIONS OFFICE MOVE

CDA Housing Operations will be moving to Suite 120 in the Madison Municipal Building effective 4/22/08.

Please note that the City of Madison Housing Operations office will be moving to Suite 120, located across from the post office, in the Madison Municipal Building, 215 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd on April 22, 2008. Phone numbers remain the same. We will be open for business during this time, but some services may be delayed. We expect to be operating in normal business fashion by Friday, April 25, 2008. Thank you for your patience during our move.



Sally Jo Spaeni
Eligibility Coordinator
City of Madison Housing Operations
215 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Ste 130
Madison WI 53701-1785
608-267-8694
FAX: 608-264-9291
www.cityofmadison.com/housing.index Read more!

Dane County Housing Authority Opens the Section 8 Waiting List

It's been about 5 years since people were allowed to apply for Section 8, so this is a HUGE deal in the housing world. Here are the highlights of their announcement:

Dane County Housing Authority is reopening their Section 8 waiting list starting July 30, 2007. Applications can be picked up at their office (2001 W Broadway, Suite 1, Monona, WI 53703) between 9:00 and 4:00. Applications can also be downloaded from the website www.dcha.net starting July 30, 2007

A date has not been set to close the waiting list but it will NOT be open for an indefinite period of time. ( i.e. do this asap!)

Some helpful suggestions they sent:
1. Incomplete applications will not be processed, they will be returned for completion.
2. Make sure you complete and sign all the attached forms.
3. Do not call and ask how long it will take to come to the top of the list or where you are on the list, as they will not know the answer.
4. They will not accept faxed applications.
5. Applications must be returned by mail to: Dane County Housing Authority, P.O. Box 6097, Monona, WI 53716-0097. Applications will not be accepted at the office.
Read more!

Section 8 - Now is the Right Time

Tomorrow night, the County Board is going to be taking up the Section 8 non-discrimination ordinance. Currently, the State of Wisconsin, Dane County and the City of Madison have laws and ordinance that protect tenants from discrimination based on "source of income". However, the courts decided that while Section 8 is a subsidy for the tenant - techinically, it is not "income", since the tenant does not recieve the money and does not have discretion over how to spend it. So, an ordinance has been proposed that includes Section 8 in the definition of Section 8.

This is not a radical lefty Madison-only idea. This has been done all over the United States. And not just in

• East Palo Alto
• San Francisco
• Portland Oregon
• Seattle
• Chicago
  
• Howard County, Maryland
• King County, Washington
• Multnomah County, Oregon
  
• Montgomery County . . .
  

but also in

• Utah
  
• Connecticutt
  
• District of Columbia
  
• Maine
  
• Massachusetts
  
• Vermont

Like I said, not a radical idea. All over the United States Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and landlords have figured out a way to make this work . . . and the sky has not fallen.

Now, much has been said and it would take me quite a while to respond to everything but here's a few quick facts:

• During the week of July 23, 2006 of 116 landlords in Dane County that were reached and have apartments that are below the Fair Market Rate, 57% (66) of them said they do not take Section 8.
• It is no harder to evict someone on Section 8 than any other tenant.
• A landlord can choose not to renew a lease for a Section 8 tenant under the same terms and conditions as any other tenant.
• Just because a landlord accepts one Section 8 tenant it doesn't mean they have to take all Section 8 tenants. Landlords can, and should, still screen their tenants.

And I know landlords are threatening to do the following:

• Raise their rents above the limit that Section 8 will allow
• Screen more tenants out so they don't have to accept Section 8 tenants
• Sue

The first two would be illegal under the new law. The third is expected.

But the bottom line remains the same . . . finding housing when you already have restrictions of finding a home that is within the price range of Section 8 requirements is difficult, but finding a home close to your kids' school, or daycare, or work, or a grocery store, or a bus line . . . becomes even harder. If we can make 57% more apartments available, its the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it. And I want to applaud the supervisors who have sponsored this amendment . . .

• Scott McDonell
• Barbara Vedder
• Elaine DeSmidt
• Brett Hulsey
• Ashok Kumar
• John Hendrick
• Matt Veldran
• Carousel Bayrd
• David Worzala
• Al Matano
• Paul Rusk
• Dave de Felilce
• Tom Stoebig
• Dorothy Wheeler
• Jeff Kostelic
• Sheila Stubbs
• Mark Opitz
• Kyle Richmond
• Patrick Downing
• Patrick Miles
• Rich Pertzborn
• Bob Salov
  

If you see them, thank them!

p.s. I uploaded a map of where section 8 vouchers are being used over at Dane101.com
Read more!

WSJ: Opinion vs. Fact

Warnining: Konkel Rant ahead!

WSJ editorials drive me nuts. For so many reasons . . . a friend of mine summed it up really well in an email today that said:

The Wisconsin State Journal's ed board is getting really boring. They roll out the same damn template for every social and economic justice proposal that we offer. Fill in the blanks: [sick leave/Section 8 equality/IZ/minimum wage] won't really help the people it's intended to help. What we really need is [a much more costly solution that would never in a million years be politically feasible and that we, the WSJ, would never actually support and would in fact vehemently opppose] and besides, this program is a mandate and government shouldn't "force" [landlords/employers/developers/realtors] to do anything.

She's right . . . that's annoying, Even more annoying to me, is that they will say anything, regardless of fact and without consequence . . .

Today's editorial on Section 8 has a few examples:

Dane County should not force landlords to participate in the cumbersome and risky rent-assistance program known as Section 8.

Instead, the federal government should stabilize and streamline the program so its funding is predictable and its red tape reduced.

Ok - "cumbersome" and "risky". I'd love to hear how they came to that conclusion. They spread these myths about the program without any facts. What "red tape" needs to be reduced? Why isn't the funding "predictable"? Are they talking about the federal government funding the Housing Authorities? Or are they talking about landlords getting their rent checks? How would that "red tape" be reduced? And why is the Section 8 program "risky"? Are they aware that the Apartment Association and the Housing Authorities have been working together to dispel these myths and get more landlords to participate . . . and they've been successful in doing so?

Historically, the main problem with the program in Dane County has not been a lack of acceptance of Section 8 vouchers. Instead, the trouble has been a lack of federal funding to pay for all the tenants who qualify for help but sit on waiting lists.

Really? Perhaps both problems co-exist side by side? Yes, we need more money for the program. But once someone gets a voucher, if they can't use it, isn't that a problem? What good is a program that doesn't work?

A misguided proposal in front of Dane County supervisors fails to address the real problem. Instead, it tars landlords as the bad guys and seeks retribution.

"Tars landlords" and "seeks retribution"? WTF? Retribution? How? Why? How did they come to this conclusion? How is this retribution? Where do they come up with language like this? Is this the "retribution"?

The proposal would prohibit landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants who plan to use Section 8 vouchers. It would add "Section 8 recipient" to a long list of things - race, gender, religion, etc. - that cannot be used to discriminate against tenants.

That's retribution? That's what "tars landlords as the bad guys"? Why is this about the landlords and not about the working poor families and disabled and elderly tenants who have vouchers?

But Section 8 is not race, gender or religion. It's a complicated government assistance program with plenty of paperwork and requirements. To claim a landlord who declines to participate in Section 8 is guilty of discrimination is to distort the meaning of discrimination into nonsense.

Wow. Again, ignoring the facts. The State of Wisconsin has a protection against discrimination based on "source of income". It's a State law that prohibits this discrimination, just like race, gender and religion. Section 8 was determined by the courts not to be a "source of income" since the tenant does not receive the check and does not have discretion to spend the money on anything other than rent. The checks go directly to the landlord. This proposal is merely extending the definition of "income" that the State already determined to be discrimination when a landlords refuses to rent to people because their income comes from social security or W-2.

The reason many landlords don't want to participate is because of the headaches and risks involved.

These kinds of statements are really counterproductive. Again, the Apartment Association and the Housing Authorities have been working for years to dispel these myths and they have been successful. More landlords than ever are willing to participate in the program . . . it's just that too many of them continue to not be willing to do so.

But like a bad rerun, the proposal is back again for another round of predictable grandstanding and tired drama. The Section 8 show should end the same way it did back in 1999. Supervisors should reject the proposal.

Oh, and the smoking ban repeal and IZ repeal weren't predictable grandstanding and tired drama?

Yup - screw the working poor families, elderly and disabled; condemn the folks trying to make their lives easier; spread lies and myths regardless of facts; and sit smugly in your comfy WSJ office and ignore the real problems we have in Madison. Oh, and while you're at it, continue to whine about how we're giving out enough corporate welfare even though your own 4 part series failed to reveal any facts to support the perception of a problem that you created.

/rant

Read more!

What's Next for Affordable Housing?

I am one of the founding members of the Affordable Housing Action Alliance that formed in 1997. This group formed because housing issues had been ignored in this City for so long. We had an entire agenda that we wanted to accomplish 7 years ago.

We started with issues like minimum income standards and Section 8 (which was the beginning of my problems with the Wisconsin State Journal). This caused the city to have a silly housing summit (with useless report) and the City and County to form a Housing Committee, neither of which created one affordable housing unit and affordable housing continued to be a problem. Section 8 failed both at the City and County by one vote. (Mayor Buaman eventually changed her mind.) So we continued to push our proposals forward much to the dismay of others. And Landlords started dumping tons of money into elections. When Mayor Bauman was running after just 2 years in office (she took office mid-term) we continued to push to make affordable housing an issue and asked her to take a leadership role. And she eventually produced her own agenda. Unfortunately, it depended upon federal money and didn't work.

Some sought out data. We organized in the community. Some attacked me and tried to kick supporters off committees. We continued to work with other groups. They accused us of being polarizing. Lots of groups formed. Mayor (Bauman) had a roundtable discussion. Developers started talking about affordable housing, but didn't follow through. They held conferences. We protested at the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Meetings were held with HUD. Big money was thrown into mayoral races. Some "chump change" was given for affordable housing. Mayor's changed, as did the council.

Through all of this ancient history and some of the more recent debate with some hard work and persistence, we've accomplished nearly half of the items we set out to do . . . and we've hardly made a dent in the affordable housing crisis. We worked on issues like TIF for affordable housing (supported by the CDA), pushed the CDA to respond better to clients, proposed to prevent discrimination against Section 8 holders at the city (more than once) and county levels and eventually passed a compromise ordinance, passed a minimum income ordiance, started talking about inclusionary zoning in 2001 (and the developers supported it then?), Todd Jarrell and Tom Powell pushed us to push for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund and it passed, but we've had trouble funding it ever since. Others have pushed things like a living wage, a local minimum wage and paid sick leave that impact affordable housing as well and we supported those initiatives. I'm sure I've neglected to list everything that we have worked on, and while some of our proposals have passed and are working, some have not passed or need more work.

Seems like we've tried so much at this point . . . and while we've kept the debate alive and made progress, there is so much more to do. Hopefully, Inclusionary Zoning will help some members of the community. The BIG question is, will all the rhetoric by the Realtors and council members about creating different housing programs, truly doing something for affordable housing for the lowest income people mean that we're ready to get serious about affordable housing for those most in need? And will the Mayor include money in the upcoming budget to address these important issues? Or is affordable housing only for teachers, firefighters and nurses? Read more!