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

[Donovan Arnold]

Visioneers,

If Ms. Lund believes what she wrote she obviously has not been up to date on 
the changes in HUD over the last few years. I further do not think her 
understanding or what I wrote us accurate. I never made the argument that 
all people on subsidized housing will be adversely affected. I simply was 
making the case that many will be. I explained how DoA subsided housing was 
established and gave you the names and phone numbers of those places to 
verify that information. I apologize to others that may have thought I was 
trying to give you detailed information on every type of housing assistance 
program. I was not.

I am disappointed that Ms. Lund would use her former position in the state 
of Washington working with HUD for the purposes of painting a false and rosy 
picture of a bureaucracy and legislature that has cut benefits and dollars 
to those already living in grinding poverty. I would have hoped that she 
would use some of her past experience to advocate for those in our community 
that are sometimes least able to advocate for themselves.

I also find it upsetting that she would wish to turn the argument from 
focusing on people and instead focus on bureaucratic rules and regulations. 
Ms. Lund is ignoring the facts and changes since she left her prior place of 
employment. (changes to HUD  
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/index.cfm) All people on 
Section 8 housing and living in low income housing will be impacted by the 
levy because;

1) HUD policy provides less funding than is needed to pay for vouchers now 
in use

2) Cuts in Housing Assistance are being made now. More then 188 FAMILIES 
were cut in Pierce Co. Washington alone in 2004 when the families had NO 
change in their status.

3) HUD has recently reduced the amount of rent that a voucher can cover.

4) There is currently a $62 dollar gap between what a voucher offers and 
what they pay.

5) Minimum monthly rental charges are now placed on most voucher holders

6) HUD issued a recent notice advising agencies to reduce the number of 
vouchers

7) Many more laws are in congress to cut funding to the poor and HUD.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/24cfr985_01.html
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/96/pih96-7.pdf
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/index.cfm
      http://www.cbpp.org/4-26-04hous.htm



If Ms. Lund wants to argue the details of rules that change every year, she 
may do that. I know rents will go up for Good Samaritans and Moscow 
Apartments, and Rayann Apartments and others because I asked the property 
owners or managers if they will raise rents if property taxes go up and they 
said yes they will or most likely, yes. So that is how I know. I went 
straight to horse’s mouth. And poor people live in those apartments. I also 
know that people in Rayann Apartments have had 5 rent increases in the last 
2 ½ years because I use to live there. Nor will all people get any 
additional assistance from federal, state, or local agencies because it is 
all income based and their income did not go down, their rent went up.

And yes Ms. Lund, there are people in low income housing that are for the 
Levy. Something else you are trying to put into my mouth I never claimed. 
Most however are oblivious to the idea that there is even a levy at all or 
the details. Soon as you tell them the property owners have said they will 
raise their rent if the levy passes they usually decide not to favor the 
levy. A fact Ms. Lund I am sure you leave out when talking to them and can 
easily verify by checking with the property manager or owner as true.

I am not asking people to vote or not vote for this levy solely based on 
this one issue. What I am asking is that people consider the huge cuts in 
assistance to those living in grinding poverty with little chance of getting 
out of it. I ask that you consider what Moscow and Idaho, and our faith 
based organizations have done to make up for the cuts in these vital 
programs. Obviously we cannot ignore the needs of education for the sake of 
the needs of a few that are in dire poverty. After all, one of the best ways 
to get out of poverty is a good education. However, is a brand new half 
finished high school worth the detriment of so many thousands of people? 
Also is it necessary that we do it RIGHT NOW.

Ms. Lund and others can pretend that the details of Section 8 and subsidized 
housing are more relevant then the facts that these people are going to have 
increases in their rent and no additional assistance. But the fact is Ms. 
Lund, they are going to be hurt.

And for the record, I too am certified and trained as being a direct care 
specialist for those with disabilities. I have been working with the poor 
and disabled since birth as my family has been involved with finding 
housing, in some cases providing it, and assisting those with a disability 
in daily living for more then 50 years in Latah County. My Mother was even 
President of Idaho Disabilities Association. My Uncle is President of an 
organization that gives financial aid to those with a disability. And my 
Grandfather and Grandmother opened a school for children with special 
education needs. I am working on my M.Ed. in Special Education. Looking for 
low income housing and exploring all the options is something I have had to 
do for others and myself.

If any of you ever have the opportunity to work directly with those with a 
disability you can probably understand my die hard protectiveness to make 
sure that they all have decent affordable housing and this is  has been one 
of their greatest obstacles in Moscow.

“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.”

Apparently Ms. Lund cannot figure out how to dial a property owner and ask 
what increases in rent they would make if they have had to pay X amount per 
$100,000 in property. Either that or she is not being honest with us. They 
could figure it out for middle income family but they did could not low 
income. Funny that hey?


So for Ms. Lund it might just be the cost of 2 pizzas a month. But for some 
others the cost might be two shoes for a year. Do not lose site of that 
fact. Regardless of what regulation it may fall under it is true.

Take Care,

Donovan J Arnold


>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
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯