City seeks to redefine public housing: Redevelopment ideas bring hope, skepticism

Seth Rosen / Charlottesville Daily Progress
Published: October 27, 2007

When community activists and Charlottesville officials describe the potential redevelopment of Westhaven and other public housing complexes, they depict a sweeping, audacious vision.

Sleek, energy-efficient apartments replace rows of aging, huddled units. Swaths of green space, new playgrounds and community centers surround multi-story towers. Middle-class families reside side-by-side with those surviving on government subsidies.

The goal is ambitious - revamping the public housing sites into mixed-income communities that intermingle market-rate apartments, single-family homes, office space and shops with public housing. Overhauling some of the 11 complexes, supporters of redevelopment say, would not only improve the quality of life for the housing authority's 1,000 residents but also supply a stepping stone to help them escape poverty.

Renting and selling market-rate units to middle-class families would likely provide the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority with something it desperately needs - a steady stream of revenue to replace dwindling federal subsidies.

But redevelopment will be a massive undertaking, perhaps costing north of $100 million. And though discussion is in its infancy, residents already fear that they could be shipped elsewhere to make room for new tenants, citing the authority's spotty record as the source of their mistrust.

Even supporters of redevelopment acknowledge the obstacles.

"I think it's going to be a challenge to design and build a successful mixed-income property where you have both the poorest and considerably much wealthier families," said Rick Jones, chairman of the housing authority's board.

If done properly, redevelopment can redefine public housing in the region, while providing the authority with financial independence and more money for social programs. If the project stumbles or lacks resident support, it could take a place alongside Vinegar Hill as paragons of city planning gone awry.

The question, then, is whether the housing authority is up to the task.

While redevelopment has been on the table at the housing authority for years, the major players are getting serious for the first time.

And a consensus is forming: Redevelopment has to be about more than providing better housing; it should serve as a catalyst to help improve lives.

"I think it's hard to argue that our residents are successfully in scale moving out of poverty," said Noah Schwartz, who took over as the head of the authority in July 2005. "Redevelopment is not the complete answer, but is a step in that direction."

Some public housing sites in Charlottesville were designed to be places apart, segregated from the larger community. This clustering of poor residents in cramped complexes contributes to and exacerbates the cycle of poverty, activists say.

"Right now, we have these sort of isolated pockets of poverty that we have neglected, and this is an opportunity to change the whole dynamics of poverty in Charlottesville," said Councilor Dave Norris, who served as chairman of the housing authority's board earlier this decade.

Mixed-income communities would provide myriad benefits to residents, activists say. Middle-class people and families would bring to bear crucial financial resources to spruce up the neighborhoods. They would have greater access to influential political, social and educational leaders, and could leverage those connections to aid their neighbors, activists contend.

"It's more than just demolishing buildings," said Holly Edwards, coordinator of the Public Housing Association of Residents and a candidate for City Council. "We really have to demolish the culture and stereotypes that come with living in [public housing]. This can empower the neighborhood."

However, better housing will not produce real results unless it is combined with more social-services programs, activists say. What is needed are more after-school classes, financial counseling, GED courses and day care, said Holly Hatcher, who works for the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation and briefly served on the housing authority's board earlier this year.

"We know that mixing incomes alone is not sufficient," she said. "People have to have opportunities for upward mobility."

The stigma

Questions abound over whether enough higher-income residents would move to a public housing site to make the idea a reality. The stigma associated with public housing and safety concerns could dissuade potential residents from living there, some say. In the past six weeks, there have been two shootings and a stabbing in Westhaven, with 21 crimes reported there so far this year.

"You're not going to have a successful property if you have people shot or knifed," said Jones, chairman of the housing authority's board and a strong proponent of mixed-income redevelopment.

Others respond that those fears are overblown and that the housing authority would have little trouble finding middle-class tenants. The reason- Location, location, location.

Westhaven is just north of West Main Street, halfway between the University of Virginia and downtown Charlottesville. Another site, South First Street, is just blocks from the Downtown Mall. Young families looking for housing in the heart of town would flock to these properties, supporters of redevelopment say.

"People want to live close to where they work, and these neighborhoods are a short walk or bus ride to the major employment centers," Norris said.

While housing officials and activists portray the change as a positive development for all involved, current residents have their doubts. Some believe that the fabric of the community, forged over decades, could be ripped apart.

"If you rebuild and put in [market-rate apartments], some people won't want poor people in their backyard," said Joy Johnson, a Westhaven resident and member of the housing authority board.

"They ain't going to bring everyone back. I guarantee," she added.

Resident mistrust

Skepticism about the intentions of the housing authority runs deep among many residents. Part of that mistrust stems from Charlottesville's history and part from past actions of the authority.

Vinegar Hill was a thriving black cultural and business hub in Charlottesville that was razed in the 1960s in the name of urban renewal. Some of the displaced residents relocated to Westhaven. But the area was never redeveloped as promised, and lay fallow for years - fostering resentment in the local black community.

Now, some residents fear that the scenario could play out again. In interviews with Westhaven residents, several said that the phrase "redevelopment" conjured up memories of that misbegotten legacy of city planning.

"If they redevelop Westhaven, the people would never return," said Jim Ward, 70, who has lived there for 15 years. "They'd just give everyone vouchers to go live elsewhere."

The housing authority has pledged that everyone who lives in public housing before redevelopment would have a place afterward. But there's no guarantee that it would be in the same place.

There are other reasons for the suspicion. The housing authority has suffered from a lack of consistent leadership - Schwartz is the fourth head in nine years, though he has been universally praised for his stewardship. The authority has been plagued by staff shortages and maintenance backlogs. For three straight years earlier this decade, the authority was listed as "troubled" by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Residents "have every reason to be distrusting based on the way public housing has been run in the community," said Hatcher, of the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation.

One of the main complaints from residents is that the buildings require major maintenance work. Charlottesville's stock of public housing has reached middle age, with all the requisite wear and tear that comes with growing older. Westhaven, the largest site with 126 units, is 42 years old; Crescent Halls, with 105 units, just celebrated its 31st birthday. Five of the other sites are at least 26.

A June 2004 report by an engineering firm found that Westhaven alone needed $10 million in repairs. According to several members of the housing authority's board, the study found that total upgrades for all facilities could be in the range of $30 million.

Residents in Westhaven spoke of a litany of problems. Shawnte Rawlings, 25, said she has been waiting for more than three months for the housing authority to fix a broken pipe.

"It's falling apart," Tarnelle Woodfook, 29, said, sitting outside her mother's porch on Hardy Drive in Westhaven. "Repairs are not going to do anything. As soon as they fix it, it will fall down again."

Housing authority officials are well aware that residents are skeptical about redevelopment. What is needed to allay those concerns, they say, is a process that is as inclusive and transparent as possible - and one that incorporates residents' input.

"We have to live up to our word," Schwartz said. "We have to reassure residents that … they may lose the home they are in, but that doesn't mean they won't have a home to come back to."

Funding challenges

Redevelopment is not just about providing better housing. It's also about money.

Because of drastic cuts to its budget by the federal government, the housing authority is facing a shortage of funding. For the current fiscal year, HUD has given the housing authority 83.4 percent of its operating budget. This spring the city had to come to the agency's rescue, filling the $160,000 shortfall.

The city also has provided $50,000 toward the salary of a redevelopment director to be hired in the coming weeks.

But the housing authority cannot permanently rely on Charlottesville's largesse.

The loss of HUD funds means the authority cannot hire more maintenance workers or family specialists, who help residents plan their finances and ward off eviction. And with federal funding expected to decrease in the future, the housing authority may be in dire straits.

The solution, some have surmised, is for the authority to create its own reliable stream of income. And, some say, the best way to do that is to leverage its greatest asset - its 40-some acres. By renting and selling market-rate condos and houses, the authority would have a greater flow of revenue every year.

"I don't think the housing authority can remain financially viable without redevelopment," Norris, the city councilor, said.

While money is a motivating factor, it might also be the biggest obstacle. How the authority would pay for architects, demolition and reconstruction is anyone's guess.

"How do you build brand-new housing, which is terribly expensive-" asked Jones, the chairman of the authority's board. "We don't know where the money will come from."

The city could play a small role. Norris posits that once redevelopment gets going, the City Council should direct all federal housing dollars to the process - which this year would be about $600,000.

That would be a drop in the bucket, officials acknowledge. Howard Evergreen, director of the Fluvanna-Louisa Housing Foundation and a former member of the authority's board, believes that UVa must contribute, because many of the new residents are likely to be its students and employees.

Federal grants will be available, but for redevelopment to happen, the housing authority must find partners in the community, many say. And whether local developers will step up is one more uncertainty.

"There just isn't that kind of money out there for these projects," Evergreen said.

But then what is the alternative, asks Jason Halbert, the head of the housing authority's redevelopment committee.

"If we are going to invest millions of dollars on aging infrastructure, at some point it makes sense to tear it down and start over," he said.