CITY OF GALVESTON

1. CITY OF GALVESTON By The Galveston Open Government Project A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing

2. Movement of the Population & Economic Center of Galveston County 1940 to 2008 (Map from Texas Windstorm, Risk Designation Areas for Galveston County) Texas City Housing Authority Galveston Housing Authority La Marque Housing Authority Migration path of economic/demographic center of county from 1940 to 2008. Demographic Facts Since GHA Founding in 1940 1940 City Of Galveston % of County Population – 75% 2008 City Of Galveston % of County Population – 19.8% 1940 Economic/Population Center of County – City of Galveston 2008 Economic/Population Center of County – Dickinson Area All 3 of Galveston County’s Housing Authorities are in the far south of the county: Galveston, Texas City, La Marque

3. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Subsidized Housing Roll-Up *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities *Public Housing and Section 8 Data from Housing Authority Profiles HUD website. *Section 8 – Funded vouchers, 697 on island, 516 on the mainland. *PH numbers from HUD HA profiles, GHA redevelopment plan said pre-Ike number was 979 *TDHCA operates Section 8 vouchers in county. They have not responded to our inquiries on numbers or distribution of vouchers.

4. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Concentration of Subsidized Housing *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities *Public Housing and Section 8 Data from Housing Authority Profiles HUD website. *Section 8 – Funded vouchers, 697 on island, 516 on the mainland. *PH numbers from HUD HA profiles, GHA redevelopment plan said pre-Ike number was 979

5. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – Concentration of Minority Population County Minority Population within Housing Authority Cities 48,180 County Minority Population 55,676 % Of County Minority Population located in Cities with Housing Authorities 86.5% % of Public Housing Units located in Cities with Housing Authorities 100% *Census Data from 2008 Estimate U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities

6. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – School Districts of the 3 HA Cities Have The Highest Concentration of African-American Students * All school data from ISD websites.

7. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Result – School Districts of the 3 HA Cities Have The Highest Concentration of African-American Students

8. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Results – The 3 HA Cities Have the Lowest Income per Capita in the County * The solid line represents the northern migration of the population center of the county. *Census Data from U.S. Census Website www.census.gov/popest/cities

9. HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!Results – The 3 HA Cities Have the Lowest Income per Capita in the County

10. The Proposal We propose that the county’s three housing authorities merge, and immediately petition the County Government for recognition as the “Galveston County Housing Authority”. The overriding principle should be that subsidized housing should be de-concentrated out of the City of Galveston. Housing, educational and employment opportunities need to be addressed from a regional perspective. HUD through it’s local Public Housing Authority, the Galveston Housing Authority (GHA), has a statutory obligation to affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that the GHA’s plan has a regional perspective, and furthermore, that GHA’s regional plan is in alignment with the regional plans of Houston HUD and surrounding Housing Authorities. Legal Basis – Thompson v. HUD, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, MJG-95-309 Academic Basis – Geography of Opportunity, Communities of Opportunity (Suggested links on last slide)

11. The Proposal Thompson v. HUD – Summary from NAACP Legal Defense Fund Website “The ACLU of Maryland filed the lawsuit in 1995 on behalf of a class of approximately 14,000 African American tenants, former tenants, and prospective tenants of Baltimore City public housing developments. Plaintiffs alleged that HUD denied Baltimore's African American public housing residents opportunities to locate throughout the region and instead concentrated them in predominantly minority areas within the city limits in violation of the Fair Housing Act.In January 2005, the District Court found HUD liable for failing to take affirmative steps to implement an effective regional strategy for desegregation and poverty de-concentration in Baltimore. The court found that HUD's programs "failed to achieve significant desegregation in Baltimore City." As Judge Marvin J. Garbis explained, "Baltimore City should not be viewed as an island reservation for use as a container for all of the poor of a contiguous region."

12. The Proposal Thompson v. HUD – Decision Memorandum “In light of HUD’s statutory duties and the fact that its jurisdiction and ability to exert practical leverage extend throughout the Baltimore Region, it was, and continues to be unreasonable for the agency not to consider housing programs that include the placement of a more than insubstantial portion of the Plaintiff class in non-impacted areas outside of Baltimore City limits.” “In sum, the Court finds that HUD failed to consider regionally-oriented desegregation and integration policies, despite the fact that Baltimore is contiguous to, and linked by public transportation and roads to, Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties and in close proximity to other counties in the Baltimore Region.” “It is high time that HUD live up to its statutory mandate to consider the effect of its policies on the racial and socio-economic composition of the surrounding area and thus consider regional approaches to promoting fair housing opportunities…”

13. Thompson v. HUD – The Map that Got the Baltimore Housing Authority in Trouble Maryland 1990 Census – 24.9% African-American Population The Proposal

14. Galveston County’s Map Galveston County 2000 Census – 25.5% African-American Population The Proposal

15. The Proposal Baltimore Program Achievements (From Oct. 2009 Report) Families & Children Helped 1500+ families moved to low poverty, integrated suburbs or city neighborhoods 88% of these moved from the inner city to the suburbs 1200+ children are now in suburban school districts Dramatic Changes in Environment Origination neighborhoods 80% black & 33% poor; destination 21% black & 7.5% poor Origination median income $24,182, destination $48,318 83% said their new neighborhood is better than their old. 70% listed their favorite positive features as better schools, less crime and drugs, friendly people, and a mix of different races and cultures School Improvements Origination student population 83% qualify for reduced lunch; destination 33% 25% of participants live in neighborhoods where less than 10% of students qualify for reduced lunch 88% say they are very satisfied with new schools 89% say their children are learning better or much better in their new schools

16. The Proposal Baltimore Program Achievements (From Oct. 2009 Report) Enhanced Quality of Life 80% say they feel safer, more peaceful, and less stressed 60% say they feel more motivated 40% say they feel healthier Housing Stability 62% stayed in their new unit when they became eligible to move Only 19% of those eligible to move chose to move back to the city Families who made a second move, moved up to even less segregated and significantly less poor areas

17. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Subsidized Housing Residents • Choice of location that matches up with current job skills. • Choice of location for educational opportunities for new skills. • Choice of location for parents to choose schools. • Choice of location based on risk tolerance of storm damage. • Opportunity for residents to tie in to the employment and educational opportunities of Houston via the Houston Metro Park & Ride located right across the county line in Webster.

18. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Housing Authorities • Combined operation would be more cost efficient. • Larger HA would carry greater weight with HUD. • Site selection opportunities would increase exponentially. • Maximize client’s opportunities to graduate out of system. • Would have the expanded resources of a region to address housing issues, and the issues of the clients.

19. The Proposal • Benefits to the Stakeholders • Current HA Cities • Reduced total number of Public Housing units would increase the amount of property on City tax rolls. • City residents and business would no longer have to make up lost taxes due to exempt properties. • Restored tax equity would put these cities on better footing for rebuilding viable middle class populations. • Socio-economic burdens would be carried by all County residents equitably.

20. Proposed Countywide Housing Authority Current Structure HGAC HUD County (AI) (Westchester) Galveston (AI) (Thompson) City (AI for each) GHA (Plan) Administration Count 14 Assessment of Impediments (AI) 2 Plans 2 Managers Contracted Mgr (Plan)

21. Proposed Countywide Housing Authority Proposed Structure HGAC HUD County (AI) (Westchester & Thompson) Administration Count 1 Assessment of Impediments (AI) 1 Plan 1 Manager Galveston County Housing Authority (Plan)

22. Planning Department Checkpoints Any plan submitted to this committee should pass three checkpoints before a recommendation for approval is given to city council. Check Point 1 – Agree on the number of units. (Thompson v. HUD, de-concentration) The number of proposed subsidized housing units (public housing + Section 8), as a percentage of households within the City of Galveston, shall not exceed the percentage of subsidized housing units within Galveston County. Check Point 2 – Agree on the location of units. Check Point 3 – Agreement on the type and mix of units in the agreed locations. Verification *U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimate data. *Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (State agency responsible for disbursing subsidized housing funds, and tracking the number of units.)

23. Summary • The Housing Authorities of Galveston, Texas City, and La Marque should merge and become the “Galveston County Housing Authority”. A regional approach should be used. • The expansion of the service area for the new County Housing Authority would benefit all stakeholders. • HUD/GHA has not lived up to it’s statutory responsibility to expand regionally, when the demographic data shows that the current working model results in concentration of public housing units and minorities within a contiguous area. • GHA’s current plan does not live up to the location criteria of the signed Consent Decree • The city has the guidance of judicial rulings upon which to base it’s decisions, and to minimize the risk of law suits to the city or delay in redevelopment. • A checkpoint system, using the judicial rulings and verifiable government data, can be used to responsibly move the proposed redevelopment plan through the system. • Agree to the number of units. • Agree to the locations. • Agree to the type and mix.

24. Research The concept of taking a regional approach to housing issues is not new, but renewed focus has come out of the Thompson v. HUD decision. The following links connect to further reading on the Regional approach in regards to housing issues: Future of Fair Housing – National Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Geography and Opportunity – Kirwan Institue for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (The Ohio State University), Director John Powell – Expert Witness Thompson v. HUD Inclusive Communities Project ACLU-MD's Fair Housing Department releases a report entitled "New Homes, New Neighborhoods, New Schools: A Progress Report on the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program" NAACP Legal Defense Fund – Thompson v. HUD Information

25. Legal Issues Thompson v. HUD– HUD obligated to address housing on a regional basis. Outline of Opinion.Analysis. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs– Current complaint that the way the TDHCA administers the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program perpetuates racial segregation. GHA’s proposal relies heavily on the LIHTC program. Texas Appleseed Administrative Complaint to HUD– CDBG funds to Texas put on hold because of non-compliance with Federal Regulations. TAA’s complaint includes that sub-recipient City of Galveston cannot certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair housing because the required AI is inadequate (pg 22) Residency of Public Housing Clients – The issue of where Galveston’s Public Housing Clients originated is a non-issue. Federal Regulations and GHA’s “Admissions and Continuing Occupation” policy have no residency requirements (pg 9). As a federal program, anyone from anywhere is allowed to apply to any HUD Housing Authority in the country. Galveston County, and all of the county municipalities listed as sub-recipients of the County CDBG, as a recipient of that CDBG, have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. Legal basis – USA v. Westchester County, NY.

26. CITY OF GALVESTON By The Galveston Open Government Project A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing END