CITY OF GALVESTON

A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing

By

The Galveston Open Government Project

Galveston Housing AuthorityLa Marque Housing Authority

Texas City Housing Authority

Migration path of economic/demographic center of county from 1940 to 2008.

Movement of the Population & Economic Center of Galveston County 1940 to 2008(Map from Texas Windstorm, Risk Designation Areas for Galveston County)

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

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.

https://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofiledetails.asp

Housing Authorities Houston HUD TDHCA Total

Sorted by Population2008 CensusEstimate

% of CountyPopulation

PublicHousing Section 8

PublicHousing Section 8

PublicHousing Section 8

PublicHousing Section 8

Galveston County 288,239 100.0% 1100 1996 1100 1996League City city (pt.) 70,471 24.4% 0 0Galveston city 57,086 19.8% 970 1516 192 970 1708Texas City city (pt.) 44,488 15.4% 130 422 130 422Friendswood city (pt.) 25,025 8.7% 0 0Dickinson city 17,886 6.2% 0 0La Marque city 14,236 4.9% 0 58 0 58Santa Fe city 10,479 3.6% 0 0 0 0

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

https://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofiledetails.asp

Total

Sorted by Population2008 CensusEstimate

% of CountyPopulation

PublicHousing Section 8

% of CountyPH

% of Section 8

PublicHousingBurden

Section 8Burden

Galveston County 288,239 100.0% 1100 1996League City city (pt.) 70,471 24.4% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0Galveston city 57,086 19.8% 970 1708 88.2% 85.6% 4.5 4.3Texas City city (pt.) 44,488 15.4% 130 422 11.8% 21.1% 0.8 1.4Friendswood city (pt.) 25,025 8.7% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0Dickinson city 17,886 6.2% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0La Marque city 14,236 4.9% 0 58 0.0% 2.9% 0.0 0.6Santa Fe city 10,479 3.6% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0

HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!

Result – Concentration of Minority Population

% 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

County Minority Population within Housing Authority Cities 48,180

County Minority Population 55,676

Sorted by % Minority Population

2008 CensusEstimate

% of CountyPopulation

2008 Minority Population (Census Minority % X Census Population)

2008 Census Estimate Minority % of Population

Galveston County 288,239 100.0% 55,676 19.3%La Marque city 14,236 4.9% 6,549 46.0%Galveston city 57,086 19.8% 24,147 42.3%Texas City city (pt.) 44,488 15.4% 17,484 39.3%Dickinson city 17,886 6.2% 5,741 32.1%League City city (pt.) 70,471 24.4% 11,275 16.0%Friendswood city (pt.) 25,025 8.7% 2,477 9.9%Santa Fe city 10,479 3.6% 671 6.4%

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

School Districts by % African American Students City

Student Population

AfricanAmerica

n

% AfricanAmeric

an HA%

White

La Marque ISD La Marque 3625 2527 69.7% Yes 10.8%

Galveston ISD Galveston 7903 2395 30.3% Yes 23.9%

Texas City ISD Texas City 5899 1150 19.5% Yes 41.8%

Dickinson ISD Dickinson 8228 1251 15.2% No 39.8%

Clear Creek ISD League City 36314 3232 8.9% No 61.1%

Friendswood ISD Friendswood 5865 129 2.2% No 82.5%

Santa Fe ISD Santa Fe 4517 32 0.7% No 85.8%

* All school data from ISD websites.

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

HUD Has Not Kept Up With the Economic & Population Shift!!

Results – The 3 HA Cities Have the Lowest Income per Capita in the County

N to S 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

2008 Inc.(1999 $'s)

GalvestonCounty 81,173 113,066 140,364 169,812 195,940 217,399 250,158 288,239

Friendswood 0 0 0 5,675 10,719 22,814 29,037 25,025 28,615

League City 0 1,341 2,622 10,818 16,578 30,159 45,444 70,471 27,170

Dickinson 0 2,704 4,715 10,776 7,505 11,692 17,093 17,886 19,785

La Marque 0 7,359 13,969 16,131 15,372 14,120 13,682 14,236 17,518

Santa Fe 0 0 0 0 5,413 8,429 9,548 10,479 20,396

Texas City 5,748 16,620 32,065 38,908 41,403 40,822 41,521 44,488 17,057

Galveston 60862 66568 67175 61809 61902 59067 57247 57,086 18,275

* 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

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 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)

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."

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…”

The Proposal

Thompson v. HUD – The Map that Got the Baltimore Housing Authority in Trouble

Maryland 1990 Census – 24.9% African-American Population

The ProposalGalveston County’s Map

Galveston County 2000 Census – 25.5% African-American Population

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Current Structure

HUDHGAC

County (AI) (Westchester)

Galveston (AI) (Thompson)

City (AI for each)

Contracted Mgr (Plan)

GHA (Plan)

Administration Count

14 Assessment of Impediments (AI)

2 Plans

2 Managers

Proposed Countywide Housing Authority

Proposed Structure

HUDHGAC

County (AI) (Westchester & Thompson)

Galveston County Housing Authority (Plan)

Administration Count

1 Assessment of Impediments (AI)

1 Plan

1 Manager

Proposed Countywide Housing Authority

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.)

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.

1) Agree to the number of units.

2) Agree to the locations.

3) Agree to the type and mix.

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

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.

CITY OF GALVESTON

A Bold New Approach For Subsidized Housing

By

The Galveston Open Government Project

END