[Vision2020] Answer to Question #8 (was Ten Simple Questions ontheBond)

Sun Apr 17 11:29:37 PDT 2005

I'm proud to be a friend of someone so articulate, knowledgeable, 
fair-minded and helpful as Saundra, and I thank her for the information 
below and for her committment to honesty and accuracy in the debate.  I know 
a lot of people have benefitted from her HUD work, and now we Visionaires 
do, too.

Thanks, Saundra --

keely

From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Answer to Question #8 (was Ten Simple Questions 
ontheBond)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:06:36 -0700

(I apologize if this shows up more than once.  I sent it yesterday, but it
seems to have disappeared into cyberspace.  SL)

Visionaries:

I apologize in advance for the length -- for those who spotted the problems
with Mr. Arnold's post, please feel free to delete  :-)

In the interest of honesty, integrity, and factual accuracy, Donovan
Arnold's response (to my response to one of his bond questions) is riddled
with grossly incorrect information.  I contacted him privately to give him
the opportunity to either retract or correct the misinformation he posted in
this public forum, but he declined, and rather ungraciously, I might add.

Part of my professional background is that I administered the HUD (yes,
that's HUD, not DoA as Mr. Arnold stated) tenant-based Section 8 Housing
Assistance Program in Whitman County for several years, a position in which
I received extensive training and certification.  During my tenure, we
instituted local preferences for working families with children, for those
with chronic mental illnesses, and for the elderly and/or disabled.  I also
had the privilege of being onboard during implementation and development of
the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which among other things, provides
escrow incentives for participants.  Prior to that position, I worked for
the same non-profit as a housing assistant, for which I also (also among
other things) provided property management for a mixed affordable housing
complex.

For full disclosure, I'll also add that I received HUD (yes, again that's
that pesky HUD, not DoA) tenant-based housing assistance in Idaho when my
daughter was an infant and I was a full-time student with a part-time job
and for a short time following graduation until I transitioned from a
part-time job to full employment.

All of that is just a long way of showing I'm actually qualified on the
subject  :-)

I don't want to bore everyone with details they may not be interested in,
but the information in Mr. Arnold's response isn't accurate, and it bothers
me greatly, not just because I think it's *terribly* dishonest for him to
use scare tactics like this with respect to the upcoming school levy, but
also because his information is just plain wrong & misleading for those with
any *genuine* interest in housing for the economically challenged.

The information he presented is partially -- and *only* partially -- correct
with respect to project-based assistance, which is only *one* category of
assistance.  He apparently knows nothing of tenant-based rental assistance,
which is a whole different and equally valuable ball of wax.

But, even with respect to project-based assistance, his information is only
*partially* correct, or more correctly, IMHO, mostly inaccurate.  I can't
speak specifically about the complexes he listed (which is quite incomplete
for Moscow -- I'll leave it to the readers to determine Mr. Arnold's
potential motives for providing incomplete & inaccurate information), but
some projects have subsidized units *and* unsubsidized units within the same
complex or project.  In those instances, the rents for the unsubsidized
units can be whatever the market will bear.  IOW, those units are NOT
subject to the same rent controls as the subsidized units.

Further, it's NOT true that all project-based assistance programs run at
cost.  Indeed, some programs/complexes actually make a profit -- go figure.
I think we've also heard of, and perhaps some of us have even dealt with,
slum lords.  They are the ones who make the news, not the honest property
owners, who also, BTW, can make project-based assistance turn a profit
depending on a variety of circumstances.

I can also tell you that the owners of some project-based assistance
programs and of units where tenant-based assistance is used not only make a
profit, but *also* use that profit to keep costs lower for tenants.  Yes,
it's true because I've known and worked with many of them.  I'm sorry Mr.
Arnold's experience was different, but that doesn't negate the facts.  It
seems to me he has an interest in stereotyping all property owners/landlords
who work with housing assistance programs and otherwise with the same
unflattering and inaccurate brush.

While his perception is no doubt true for *some* landlords/property owners,
it's certainly *not* true for them all or even the majority of them, IMHO,
whether he's talking about property owners who participate in rental
assistant programs or not.  Indeed, I know a few property owners in Moscow
who, while they may not have tenants receiving rental assistance, do an
admirable job nonetheless of working with low income, elderly, disabled,
working families, etc. tenants to provide more affordable housing.  For a
year or so, I guess my husband and I were among those private property
owners who worked with our single-parent working family tenants  :-)  And,
no, unlike Mr. Arnold's experience, we didn't pass along every expense to
our tenants -- not even close -- but we *still* made a profit *and* provided
affordable housing to an economically challenged family.

I can tell you from my professional experience, the individual
owner's/owners' *management* skills and *motivation* factor greatly in how
successful -- or unsuccessful -- any rental proposition is, whether we are
talking about units where tenant-based rental assistance is used, complexes
that are wholly or partially subsidized, or open market units.

For those interested in actually learning about rental assistance programs
and how they operate, you might want to explore the following links as a
starting point:
http://www.hud.gov/
http://www.hud.gov/renting/index.cfm

http://www.ihfa.org/default.asp
http://www.ihfa.org/rentalassistance.asp
http://www.ihfa.org/pdfs/IAHD_North_Central.pdf

To recap, Mr. Arnold asked:
"8)	Why does the school only outlay costs to taxpayers living in a home
with $100,000-200,000 in value with a 50% tax exemption? Why not break down
the costs for an apartment dweller? Or a renter of a home? The majority of
people having to pay housing are not in homes worth $100,000-$150,000. Tax
increases affect the poor more then they affect the middle class with 50%
tax exemptions and the wealthy."

My response was:
The answer to this question (like most of the others) is very simple and
logical.  In fact, for anyone who has actually *worked* helping the
economically disadvantaged with housing, and likely to many others making a
genuine effort to understand rather than stereotype, the answer to Donovan's
question is crystal clear:  the cost to renters CANNOT be broken down
because of the variables.

Simply put, whether passage of the levy will cost *any* individual renter
*any* money depends on the individual property owner, *not* on anything the
district can do or know.

I stand by my answer as being accurate and complete.

Furthermore, I strongly object to Mr. Arnold's attempt to use unfounded and
inaccurate scare tactics in an attempt to argue against the upcoming school
bond.  It is flatly irresponsible for him to imply that the entire cost
incurred by rental property owners will be passed on to renters receiving
rental assistance.  While that may be the case in some instances and with
some property owners, that won't be the case for *all* renters, whether they
receive rental assistance or not.

I also want to add something.  I have no idea if this is something Mr.
Arnold has done or not, but I've actually talked with people, including
those receiving rental assistance, about the upcoming levy.  Just as among
the community as a whole, there are a wide variety of responses and
concerns, and I want to share the sentiments of some who receive rental
assistance.  Along with many/most of us, there are concerns about the
expense for our community as a whole and for individuals.

HOWEVER, there is also a good amount of support for the school levy amongst
those I've talked to, including those receiving rental assistance.  Yes,
they are economically challenged, but that doesn't make them universally
unable or unwilling to recognize the need to address the facilities issues
our school district is grappling with.  They see the same pros and cons that
everyone else sees, Mr. Arnold, and they have the same personal economic
concerns as just about everyone else.  Indeed, I've not talked to a *single*
person for whom the increased property taxes *isn't* a concern, whether
renters or property owners.

But, some of us, Mr. Arnold, and that includes some receiving rental
assistance and property owners as well, have examined the issue and are
still willing to dig deep into our pockets and support the levy anyway, in
spite of financial hardship.

I could go on, but I'll end this by writing that I still believe there are
good people on *all* sides of the school bond issue.  Do you?  Based in your
tactics, I guess you don't.

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
Edmund Burke

-----Original Message-----
From: Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanarnold at hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 15 April 2005 5:02 PM
To: sslund at adelphia.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Answer to Question #8 (was Ten Simple Questions on
theBond)

Saundra,

"Simply put, whether passage of the levy will cost *any* individual renter
*any* money depends on the individual property owner, *not* on anything the
district can do or know."

That answer might help you to sleep at night but it is 100% false.  Low
income housing, Good Sams, and Section 8 housing run at virtual cost. Any
property taxes passed will have to be passed on to the renters because there
is no difference between what the renters are paying and the cost of running
the apartment. Low income housing charges only what the government allows
them, which is just enough to keep the place running. If the property owners
do not raise rent on the low income tenants that means the property owner
would be running the apartment in the red. They cannot do that. If an
apartment costs $20,000 to operate that is what they charge the tenants. If
the taxes go up and it costs $21,000 that is what they have to charge the
$1000 to the tenants.

I have lived in low income housing. I know every time they have to paint the
building, or fix the sidewalk, or redo the roof they divide up the cost and
put it in a rent increase. They have to because the building runs at cost.
The same goes with property taxes.

Saundra, landlords of low income housing do not make the decision of when
they can raise rents or for what reasons. It is defined by the department of
Agriculture. I know, it should be the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, but it is not. So please check you facts. It is a 100% probably
that rents will go if this bond levy passes. It is not an arbitrary decision
made by a greedy landlord sitting on a pile cash. That is not the reality,
it is the one you wish exists so people can sleep at night. Well I cannot
sleep at night knowing that is what we are doing to others. And ignoring the
facts does not help people.

If you doubt my words I will take you as many apartments and the managers of
these apartments will tell you the same thing. If you raise the rent on low
income, they have to raise the rent, it is the law, they cannot run in the
red, the government will cease their property. But again, all you have to do
is ask, and I will take to you apartments, apartment managers, government
workers, and landlords that will tell you the same.

Burying your head in the sand to what you are doing with this levy does not
change the reality that you worsen peoples living conditions and quality of
life. You cannot raise taxes and have zero negative consequences.

If you doubt this, please call them yourself and ask if they have to raise
their rents when property rents go up and the effect on people with low
fixed income:

Hawthorn Apartments 882-3516
Rayann Apartments-882-2599
Moscow Apartment 882-2599
Disability Action Center-883-0523
Any others you want.

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold

_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/