February 13, 2005

Proposed changes to 24 CFR §970.13(b) do not promote consultation with
residents and so are contrary to the goals of 42 U.S.C § 1437p. These
changes should not be made.

Consultation with residents is an extremely important part of the
process of applying for demolition or disposition of public housing.
Demolition or Disposition of Public Housing Projects, 69 Fed. Reg. 75190
(Dec. 15, 2004). Congress made this policy clear by stating that
applications for demolition or disposition of public housing *must be*
developed in consultation with **residents or resident organizations**
affected by a proposed demolition or disposition. 42 U.S.C §
1437p(b)(2)(A-B). This consultation is not optional and it cannot be
cast aside in the interest of saving time for the agency.

The proposed changes to 24 CFR §970.13(b) are in direct opposition to
congressional intent as well as prior HUD policy. The present
regulations reflect the high importance that Congress placed on
consultation with residents. By providing an opportunity to organize to
residents, the local PHA is allowing for meaningful input from those
directly impacted by demolition and disposition. These are people's
homes. They deserve a chance to voice their concerns. They also deserve
a chance to keep their communities together if they can find the
funding.

The proposed rule change removes the requirement for the local PHA to
give residents an opportunity to organize. It is logical that residents
would need to organize if they are to consider exercising the right of
first refusal created by the statute in §1437p(c). But it is also
logical that the threat of disposition will cause unorganized residents
to organize. The statute necessitates consultation with residents
(§1437p(b)(2)(A)) **or** a resident organization (§1437p (b)(2)(B)). The
statute does not state that the residents must be organized for the
consultation requirement to be triggered.

Congress has stated that the public housing in question could be sold
"to any eligible resident organization, eligible resident management
corporation, or nonprofit organization acting on behalf of the
residents." 42 U.S.C § 1437p(c)(1). Clearly this action taken by
Congress, in conjunction with the consultation requirement, expressed an
intent of Congress for HUD to avoid the problems of the past which
occurred when low-income communities were excluded from the decision
making process.

Public Housing Authorities (PHA) tasked with redevelopment under the
HOPE VI programs are faced with a dilemma: creating mixed-income
communities from the existing low-income communities. The United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been sensitive to
the concerns of the communities living in the path of redevelopment by
requiring that PHAs conduct meaningful community participation or
consultation before implementing the proposed action.

HUD understood the aforementioned Congressional intent, and implemented
rules that significantly assured that residents in effected communities
would be afforded the opportunity to consult with the particular PHA,
and possibly purchase the housing in question. HUD currently requires
that, in the event that an effected community has not organized, "the
PHA shall make a reasonable effort to inform residents of the
development of the opportunity to organize and purchase the property
proposed for demolition and disposition." 24 C.F.R § 970.13(2)(b). This
same provision requires that the PHA afford the residents at least 45
days to organize into a resident organization. This requirement was
noted as being an integral part of the consultation requirement under 24
C.F.R § 970.4(a).

We agree with HUD that the right to organize in order to potentially
purchase the housing in question is an integral part of the resident
consultation requirement. We also believe that both the consultation
requirement and the opportunity to purchase provision appropriately
express Congressional intent regarding urban planning policy, and
protect against deleterious community effects.

Thus, we respectfully request HUD to reconsider the proposed rule change
24 C.F.R § 970.9, and maintain the current requirement that PHAs afford
residents an opportunity to organize.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon McConnell

Sean Boyle

Seattle University School of Law