U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38–387 PDF 2007

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION:

LESSONS FROM STARRETT CITY

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 10, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–47

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

PETER T. KING, New York 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 10, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

July 10, 2007 ..................................................................................................... 43

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2007

Arriaga, Frederick C., Counsel, Borough of Brooklyn .......................................... 24

Cestero, Rafael, Senior Vice President, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. . 30

Donovan, Shaun, Commissioner, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ................................................................................... 21

Montgomery, Hon. Brian D., Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing 

Commissioner, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ........... 8

Pazant, Shirley, ACORN member .......................................................................... 32

Perine, Jerilyn, Executive Director, Citizens Housing and Planning Council .... 28

Purnell, Marie, President, Starrett City Tenants Association ............................. 26

VanAmerongen, Deborah, Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing 

and Community Renewal .................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M. ............................................................................... 44

Arriaga, Frederick C. ....................................................................................... 49

Cestero, Rafael .................................................................................................. 54

Donovan, Shaun ................................................................................................ 60

Montgomery, Hon. Brian D. ............................................................................ 67

Pazant, Shirley ................................................................................................. 71

Perine, Jerilyn .................................................................................................. 75

VanAmerongen, Deborah ................................................................................. 78

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Statement of David Bistricer ........................................................................... 85

Statement of Disque D. Deane ........................................................................ 91

(1)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION: 

LESSONS FROM STARRETT CITY 

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at the 

Brooklyn Sports Club, 1540 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New 

York, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Velazquez, Ellison, 

and Shays. 

Also present: Representatives Towns and Clarke. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Good morning. First, I would like to thank 

you for your patience. We are getting started a little late; however, 

we are excited about being here, and we thank you for waiting past 

the 10:00 to get started. I think we are going to have some good 

news for you today. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 

Opportunity will come to order. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank first Mr. Edolphus 

Towns for requesting this hearing on the preservation of Starrett 

City out of his concern about the loss of this development as affordable housing. 

Let me just share with you that when I first learned about this, 

I was in California—I think we may have been on break—and I got 

an urgent call from Mr. Towns, and I have talked with him every 

day since that call, assuring him that we would be here today and 

we would have this subcommittee hearing. 

So, I know that you just gave him a round of applause. We are 

going to break all the rules. Give him another round of applause. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Christopher Shays, who 

went to a great deal of trouble to be here today. He did not get in 

until after 1:30 this morning, but he wanted very much to be here 

because he sees this as an opportunity for us to learn about what 

we can do, not only here at Starrett, but with other, similar developments across the country. 

Another New Yorker who has been very concerned about this 

project, and despite the fact that she probably should be at the doctor right now, she said that she had to spend the time here, because this is so important not only for Brooklyn and this area, but 

for all of New York, Congresswoman Velazquez. 

2

And, we will probably be joined a little bit later by another member of the committee—all right. We are going to talk a little bit 

louder, with the microphone a little bit closer. 

I want to make sure that you understand that Mr. Shays and 

Ms. Velazquez are members of the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Community Opportunity, and we will probably be joined by one 

other member, Mr. Keith Ellison, and another New Yorker, Ms. 

Yvette Clarke. They will perhaps be joining us this morning. 

I would like to start by noting—and I have to do this for the 

record—that without objection, Mr. Towns and Ms. Clarke, who are 

not members of the committee, will be considered members of the 

subcommittee for the duration of this hearing. Also, without objection, all members opening statements will be made a part of the 

record. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today at Starrett City, the 

largest federally subsidized, affordable housing development in the 

United States, in order to discuss preserving its affordability for 

current and future tenants. 

In February, Starrett City Associates sold this development to Clipper Equity for $1.3 billion. However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the New York State Division of 

Housing and Urban Renewal rejected that sale due to a lack of a 

clear plan as to how the development would be kept affordable. 

In March, Clipper Equity submitted a second plan to HUD. This 

plan relies heavily on enhanced vouchers which protect most tenants from rent increases, but does not make the development affordable after tenants move out. Perhaps more troubling is the fact 

that not all tenants will receive enhanced vouchers, and some of 

those who receive them will still see their rents increased. There 

are also unsubsidized tenants at Starrett who will see their rents 

increase under Clipper Equity’s plan. 

Although Clipper Equity says it will phase this increase in over 

3 years, the rise in rent could cause a hardship for these working 

families. However, there have been concerns raised also about the 

financial feasibility of this plan, and I certainly shared those concerns once I reviewed the plan. 

However, I am pleased to announce that the Department—that 

is, HUD—has rejected the plan a second time. I was informed of 

the Department’s decision yesterday, and I would like to take this 

moment to commend the Secretary of HUD, Secretary Jackson, for 

recognizing the infeasibility of Clipper Equity’s plan. 

In a letter dated July 9th, Secretary Jackson stated that Clipper 

Equity has failed to demonstrate that it has the organization or financial capacity to follow through with its plan. In addition, Secretary Jackson notes that Clipper Equity has not provided a full 

management plan to preserve long-term affordability of Starrett 

City. The message from HUD is very clear: This plan simply is not 

financially feasible. 

And this rejection signals that the sale of affordable housing resources like Starrett City is to be held to the highest scrutiny. 

I share Secretary Jackson’s concerns about the financial infeasibility of the plan submitted by Clipper Equity. In addition, I am 

very concerned about the suitability of David Bistricer as a manager of affordable housing, given the numerous housing code violaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:48 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 038387 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38387.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
3

tions at Flatbush Gardens and his department by the State of New 

York from converting rental housing into condominiums or cooperatives. 

The New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal has also rejected Clipper Equity’s plan for a second time. 

Yesterday, DHCR announced that they, too, were rejecting the plan 

for affordability submitted by Clipper Equity. 

So, right now, this is a victory for the tenants. 

We have worked to keep Starrett affordable, and Mr. Towns’ role 

in requesting this hearing, which has clearly prompted these decisions from HUD and DHCR, should not be forgotten. 

We are very pleased with this announcement that Starrett City 

will remain affordable. In his written testimony to this subcommittee, Disque Deane states that it is time for his patient and 

long-term investors to move on from Starrett City, and that the application of housing subsidies does not transform his privately 

owned asset into a public work. 

To that, I say to Mr. Deane, your first obligation is not to your 

investors or to your stakeholders, but to the families and communities who make Starrett City so valuable. All of these families are 

worth more than $1.3 billion, and Mr. Deane, I believe, should recognize that. Any plans for the sale of this development must be undertaken in a clear and transparent manner, with input from residents and government officials, and must, absolutely must take 

pains to keep this development affordable. 

I am disappointed that Mr. Bistricer and Mr. Deane have chosen 

not to testify at these proceedings, or to make a representative 

available to testify on their behalf. However, Mr. Bistricer and Mr. 

Deane have submitted written testimony to this subcommittee, and 

it will be entered into the record, without objection. 

Affordable housing preservation is a national issue. From 1995 

to 2003, this country has lost 300,000 federally assisted affordable 

housing units. This loss in affordable housing comes at a time 

when more and more families are struggling to pay the rent; 17 

million of the Nation’s renters have housing cost burdens, paying 

over 30 percent of their income in rent. Of this number, 8 million 

have severe housing cost burdens, paying over 50 percent of their 

income in rent. Low-income families with severe housing cost burdens often spend substantially less on food, clothing, and health 

care. It is hard for these families to make ends meet, because their 

incomes have stagnated while rents have risen. 

This means that rental housing is increasingly out of reach for 

America’s working families. When renters only earn an average of 

$13 an hour, but really need to earn at least $16.31 an hour to pay 

the rent on a two-bedroom apartment, the need for affordable housing preservation is very clear. 

But, it simply isn’t enough to retain each unit of affordable housing. We must also create new units. For every two units of affordable housing lost, only one affordable unit is built. It is clear that 

we need to do more to increase the supply of the Nation’s affordable housing. 

This is why I am honored to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 

2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. The 

goal of the Trust Fund is to preserve, rehabilitate, and produce 1.5 

4

million more units of affordable housing over the next 10 years, 

without increasing government spending or adding to the Federal 

deficit. 

The sale of affordable housing resources like Starrett City is 

about more than bricks and mortar. It is about lives and communities, and anybody should clearly demonstrate to the government 

how it will protect those lives and communities. 

I believe that the witnesses gathered here can help this subcommittee understand the importance of the continued affordability 

of Starrett City. 

I would now like to recognize Congressman Shays for his opening 

statement. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. I am here because Chairwoman Waters and Representative Towns said, ‘‘Be here.’’ We could not have a more caring chairwoman than Chairwoman Waters or a more caring and effective 

Representative than Ed Towns. 

I appreciate the interest all the stakeholders have taken in this 

issue—HUD, the Governor, the Mayor, the borough president’s office, the property owners, and, most importantly, the tenants who 

live here, all of you. 

For better or worse, the Federal Government has removed itself 

from owning and managing affordable and public housing. Because 

of this evolution, the Government is captive to the costs of renting 

housing from private owners. 

Today, we will examine how we can best preserve our affordable 

housing stock nationwide, and what some of the challenges are as 

the value of affordable units becomes so attractive in the private 

real estate market. 

While today’s hearing will focus on preserving access to affordable housing in Starrett City, we know the outcome of the proposed 

sale would have a profound impact on the marketplace nationwide. 

In coming years, as more owners of affordable housing communities 

consider the desirability of maintaining their investment, a sale to 

private developers is more and more likely. 

Although it is not the situation in Starrett City, in some cases, 

the need for capital improvements to the property is so great that 

the owner has no choice but to sell all or part of the property. The 

greatest risk when interested parties improperly intervene in the 

sale or transfer of a property is that the owner loses all interest 

in the future of the property and simply sells to the highest bidder, 

losing the affordable units altogether. 

We know that as Starrett City goes, so will go many future developments in the affordable housing marketplace. Owners, prospective buyers, State and local governments, tenants, and advocates are all watching closely. And we need to be concerned that 

a negative outcome will stifle future investment, and interest in affordable housing will continue in the private marketplace. 

We need to find a resolution that, first and foremost, protects the 

families who live here, and also takes into account the needs of the 

owners to maintain this very successful private and public partnership. 

I am grateful that HUD has examined this issue so closely. It did 

not hesitate to rule that the initial proposal threatened the preserVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:48 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 038387 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38387.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
5

vation of affordable housing for those who need it most, the families of Starrett City, and how it has done the same again. 

Under the leadership of Secretary Jackson, HUD’s commitment 

to preserving the affordability of these units is real, and it is appreciated by all of us. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you again for your leadership on 

this issue. I look forward to the testimony. 

I also want to convey my appreciation for the friendliness of this 

place; I had bumped into Ms. King in Apartment 3–B, and she invited me up to her unit. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to recognize Congresswoman Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and Mr. Shays, for convening this important hearing and leading this discussion on the dire need for affordable 

housing in our City and across the United States. 

I also want to thank the City administration, particularly HPD, 

and the State government and HUD, for coming together in addressing such an important issue. Whatever happens at this development will be a defining point for the rest of the country. And 

what it shows is how we can bring positive results when different 

levels of government come together. Despite the fact that we have 

a Republican Administration, on this issue, I have to say that you 

have been responsible in making sure that working families who 

are working two and three jobs have a roof over their heads. 

And I say thank you to Mr. Shays for your sensitivity, to Mr. 

Towns for your commitment to preserve affordable housing, but 

most importantly, to the tenants of Starrett City for your activism, 

and your commitment and your drive to preserve affordable housing. 

So, in light of the issue at hand and in light of the heat, I will 

ask unanimous consent that my entire statement is admitted into 

the record. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And, with that, I just am eager to hear the good 

news from the Honorable Brian Montgomery. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

And now I will call on the gentleman who has talked to me every 

day until we got here, Congressman Edolphus Towns. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin by thanking the chairwoman, Congresswoman 

Maxine Waters, who came 3,000 miles to be with us this morning. 

Let’s give her a big round of applause. We thank her for her commitment and her dedication. And, of course, we welcome her to 

Brooklyn. 

I would also like to thank the Secretary of HUD, who made two 

visits to Starrett City—not one, but two. And then, of course, after 

making his visit, he then ruled, which means that he understands 

Starrett City. He had an opportunity to talk to the residents of 

Starrett City before he made his decision. So I want to thank Secretary Jackson for his commitment and his dedication. 

I want to thank HPD, and I also want to thank State Housing 

for all of their visits to Starrett City. Let me tell you that anybody, 

6

anywhere that I have met, I told them about what was happening 

at Starrett City, and they needed to assist us in doing a good job. 

I am delighted to be joined by my colleague, Nydia Velazquez, 

who has worked with me on this issue. And, of course, I have gotten everybody involved. Yvette Clarke, who is my next-door neighbor, we have her here. We want her to hear what is going on. 

And, of course, this is the largest subsidized housing in the country, and we should not forget that. And, of course, the way Starrett 

City goes is the way the Nation is going to go, so we want to make 

certain that we learn as much as we can from you, as to what we 

might be able to do from this day on. 

A few years ago, the American Heart Association ran a successful 

series of public service announcements to raise awareness of the 

perils of high blood pressure. The spots labeled the disease the silent killer. Today, the Nation faces a public policy challenge that 

reminds me of how blood pressure, acute, growing, and deadly, yet 

for most Americans, unknown, the issue is affordable housing. The 

escalating rents and deplorable housing conditions for tens of thousands of Brooklyn residents are familiar to us all. 

You know, they talk about enhanced vouchers. Well, enhanced 

vouchers really are not a solution to our problem, you see, because 

the voucher is tied to the individual, and not to the apartment. So, 

if the person moves out, then they just can raise the rent in the 

apartment, because that enhanced voucher is gone. 

So we need to make certain that we don’t listen to the tricks. We 

have to learn today to make certain that we ask the right questions. Because in order to get the right answer, you must phrase 

the question properly. 

We don’t want to be like the old man who was sitting on a bench, 

and not too far from him was a dog. Two young fellows were playing around, and they asked the old man, ‘‘Will your dog bite?’’ And 

the old man said, ‘‘No, my dog will not bite.’’ The young fellow went 

over to pet the dog, and the dog took a hunk of meat out of his 

hand. He said, ‘‘I thought you said your dog wouldn’t bite.’’ And the 

old man said, ‘‘That is not my dog.’’ 

So we need to make certain that we phrase the question properly, so that we will be able to get the right answers. And that is 

the reason why I am so happy that we have the chairwoman of the 

committee here, and all the others here today, to try to see if we 

can’t phrase the right question to be able to get the right answers. 

You can be assured that Ed Towns is not going to go away. Now, 

I understand that somebody has tried to run, and the purchaser 

said, ‘‘Well, we wish Ed Towns would go away.’’ Well, I want to let 

you know that I am not going away. As long as the people in this 

development are affected by what they decide to do, I will not go 

away. 

A lot of us have heard the record from hundreds of residents who 

believe this transfer in ownership will result in significantly higher 

rents, a reduction of services, and undue pressure for tenants to relocate. This deal has already been rejected twice. How many times 

do they have to reject it before they get the message that this pig 

will not fly? 

While housing policy is often complicated, housing itself is very 

simple. Everyone needs a decent place to live and the ability to pay 

7

for it. This is the social minimum. It is a goal we can achieve, and 

a goal we must set if we expect families to succeed and our neighborhoods to flourish. 

So I thank the committee for coming to Brooklyn to hear firsthand what the residents of Starrett City and Spring Creek and 

Brooklyn have to say about the issue of affordable housing. Let me 

assure the residents of Starrett City that you are not alone in this 

fight. Ed Towns will say it, as long as my tongue clings to the roof 

of my mouth, affordable housing must be kept. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been joined by another New 

Yorker, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Let me just start by thanking the distinguished 

chairwoman from California, young Maxine Waters, for coming 

across the country to be here in Brooklyn, New York, where the 

Nation really, truly is. 

Let me just say that I have found, in my short tenure in the U.S. 

House of Representatives, that all that we have heard and all that 

we have read about Maxine Waters remains true, remains vibrant, 

and ever vigilant on behalf of the people of the Nation. And so we 

owe her a debt of gratitude, and it is certainly my honor and my 

privilege to serve with her. 

To my colleague, Congressman Ed Towns, my partner who I—we 

have adjoining districts. When I hear about a struggle happening 

in the 12th Congressional—and to my colleague, Nydia Velazquez, 

who sits on the other side of my district, and I hear about a struggle happening in her district, the 10th Congressional, it has a profound impact on the people of the 11th Congressional District. And 

so I am moved to be where these Members are, to stand up for each 

and every one of you who make our civil society just that, a civil 

society. 

Affordable housing is instrumental to so many New Yorkers and 

working families in our community, and when we turn our backs 

at this juncture in our history, we are saying that we do not embrace the value of this Nation. It has been families like yours and 

like mine who have made America what it is today. 

We have an obligation not only to wage this battle and win, but 

we have an obligation to leave a legacy for those who are coming 

behind us. If we lose this battle of affordability, of our humanity, 

and just being humane around how we will support housing for our 

people, then we are saying that we give up on the future of this 

Nation. When we win here in Brooklyn, New York, they will win 

in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

I am committed, as are my colleagues, to diligently pushing for 

a better agenda that will protect our diminishing supply of affordable housing and push forward forcefully for increased affordable 

housing in this Nation, in this City, and in this State. If not, we 

know what the consequences are; we will continue to see a separation between the haves and the have-nots. The have-nots will continue to labor in vain, and their American dream will not be attained. I cannot stand by for that. 

Let me just close by saying that I want to thank the Honorable 

Brian Montgomery for taking the time to be here with us. It is a 

8

lovely facility here in Starrett, and we want to make sure that the 

residents who have been the stewards of this place continue to receive the respect and the dignity that they deserve. 

Today, we send a signal to all working people throughout this 

City, and throughout this borough, that we stand together in unity, 

understanding that a roof over one’s head is an indication of 

growth, of development, and that when we fail to make sure that 

our people are housed, we have failed in our civil society. 

Let me thank HPD—I see so many of my friends here; You know, 

I was a Council member just 6 months ago—and I thank DHCR 

for their vigilance in this matter. I look forward to partnering with 

my colleagues, and with each and every one of you, as we are victorious in making sure that affordable housing is truly affordable, 

and that it remains a fact of the foundation of our community. 

Mr. TOWNS. As I pass the microphone back to the chairwoman 

of the committee, let me just ask that all the able-bodied stand and 

give seats to our seniors. We have some seniors who are standing. 

And, of course, we hope that you would do that. I mean—so think 

about it, and see if you can’t help me out. Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to introduce our first panel, which consists of 

the Assistant Secretary for Housing for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Brian Montgomery. 

Assistant Secretary Montgomery, thank you for appearing before 

the subcommittee today. And, without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. 

You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN D. MONTGOMERY, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HOUSING-FEDERAL HOUSING 

COMMISSIONER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Good morning. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Waters, Chairman Towns, and distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. On behalf of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, thank you for inviting 

me and the Department to testify here today. We appreciate the 

opportunity to provide the committee with our position on Starrett 

City, as well as our commitment to the preservation of affordable 

housing across the Nation. 

Starrett City has been a model housing effort. The development 

has allowed low-income families to find affordable housing in the 

City, to remain part of the City, to feel a sense of community and 

to grow within the community. It is for these and other reasons our 

Administration and HUD remain committed to preserving this affordable housing. 

With more than 16,000 residents, Starrett City is the largest federally subsidized development in the country and is an essential affordable housing resource for the entire area. We believe the proposed transaction threatens New York City’s affordable housing 

market and those most in need of the housing. At HUD, we recognize that this sale is expensive to the developer and that rents will 

have to be increased to cover the debt service. As a result, the sale 

9

could quickly displace most, if not all of the residents, who will 

have few housing options left in this tight market. 

As you are aware, the Department rejected the initial request 

from Clipper Equity due to the lack of information needed to make 

an informed decision as to their capacity and their experience to 

operate a development of this size. And the Department has recently reviewed a revised proposal and yesterday, yes, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson rejected this proposal, as well. 

We at HUD continue to have serious concerns regarding Clipper 

Equity’s organizational and financial capacity, as well as their ability to sustain the development as affordable housing for the long 

term. 

As you know, the Secretary also met with more than 100 residents of Starrett City in Washington a few months ago. He wanted 

to listen, and he heard the concerns. And from day one, the Secretary has made it clear that HUD’s number one priority is preserving Starrett City as affordable housing. This remains our goal, 

and we will not waiver from it. 

The need for preservation of our existing affordable housing stock 

cannot be overstated. In addition to the aging of the physical structures, preservation is challenged by a number of things, including 

escalating market rents in some areas, including up here, rapid increases in operating expenses, and regional demographic shifts that 

include our aging populations and persons with disabilities. 

To date, HUD has preserved the affordability of more than 

250,000 units nationwide. But to assist us in doing more, our industry partners and elected officials from around the country have 

put forth legislation to address affordable housing preservation. 

One proposed legislation is H.R. 647, introduced by Chairwoman 

Waters and Deborah Pryce, and S. 131, introduced by Senators Allard and Reed of Rhode Island. These will further HUD’s opportunities to strengthen and advance our preservation efforts. This legislation reauthorizes the Mark-to-Market program that has preserved more than 125,000 units to date. If reauthorized for another 

5 years, we can expect to preserve approximately 50,000 additional 

units. 

In May of this year, we also sponsored a national affordable rental housing symposium, Preservation: Now and in the Future. We 

covered many topics and had a very productive dialogue with preservation experts and housing advocates, with more than 250 in attendance. Some key issues discussed were the section 202 refinancing rules and the need for clarification to have it be a more 

effective tool. We also discussed the one-for-one unit replacement 

policy and when it should be required, as well as the need for resources—private, local, State, and Federal—to work together to 

preserve projects and mortgages that are maturing with no longterm affordability or tenant protections. 

We are also pleased to report that a revised section 202 refinancing notice is in its final stage of completion. We are also working on policy regarding the conversion of units from efficiencies to 

one-bedrooms, and how to use the one-for-one replacement when 

redeveloping and preserving a project. Both of these notices, I am 

pleased to report, should be published within 90 days. 

10

It was also collectively concluded that we need to establish more 

incentives for owners to maintain the housing as affordable for the 

long term. This will be after mortgages mature or rental assistance 

contracts expire. 

Lastly, the Department is also committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in this country. The majority of affordable 

housing projects built today are financed through the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit. We have begun an initiative to identify and 

address ways in which HUD’s financing programs—FHA, and section 202, and section 811—can work more effectively and more efficiently with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. We are 

streamlining our subsidy layering procedures and processing procedures in order to improve the timing of HUD approvals to meet the 

tax credit program deadlines. 

But we are committed also to working with the Department of 

the Treasury to achieve better coordination between the two agencies in administering these very successful affordable housing programs. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate the Administration and 

HUD’s commitment to the development and preservation of affordable housing, including, of course, Starrett City. I enjoy visiting 

such vibrant communities as I found here in Starrett City, and preserving these kinds of communities is our top priority at HUD. 

Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have 

at this time. I would also like to thank the residents here for 

hosting this day, as well. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Montgomery can 

be found on page 67 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, 

Assistant Secretary Montgomery. 

I would like to begin the question period with a few questions 

you raised in my mind. 

I have been told that Mr. Bistricer will not go away, that he is 

going to come back with another proposal. I have been told that the 

seller is interested in selling, and if not to Mr. Bistricer, perhaps 

someone else will come with a proposal. 

I heard your commitment for reviewing any proposal in the way 

that you have reviewed this one, to make sure that it is financially 

sound and that the management capability is well documented. So 

are you telling the residents here that should there ever be a sale, 

it would essentially be seamless, that there should not be a lot of 

waivers and other kinds of subsidized support from the Federal 

Government, or anything that would increase the rents, and displace people? 

Would you please just talk to us a little bit more about what happens if there is a continued attempt to purchase. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I will give you a short answer. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Say it loud. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Unless a proposal keeps this facility affordable— 

Chairwoman WATERS. I am sorry. They can’t hear you in the 

back. 

11

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Unless a proposal keeps this facility—a 

Starrett City proposal keeps this an affordable property, we are not 

interested in such a proposal. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

And secondly, Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you, have we 

learned very much, looking at this proposal, that will help us as 

we view attempts to purchase these kinds of developments all over 

the country? Have we learned some lessons here? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Absolutely. And I want to paraphrase something that Chairman Towns said. It is fortunate— 

Mr. TOWNS. They can’t hear you in the back. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I am paraphrasing what Chairman Towns 

said. It is fortunate in this case that the tenants here, that the 

residents here, led by Ms. Marie Purnell and others, asked the 

right questions. They united as a voice. The two parties—in reference to bipartisanship in this, we worked together. I want to say 

that we knew the principles and we did the right thing. 

So the lessons learned: Obviously, we need to define exactly what 

is in the proposal—I am just reiterating what I said earlier. We are 

not interested in entertaining other proposals that remove the affordability from this property. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

So, in essence, what you just said was the activism, the concerns 

of the residents here, organizing, asking the right questions, making sure that everybody understood what their concerns were certainly did help you in reviewing this project and understanding 

what had to be done. 

Is that what you are telling us? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Absolutely. Having a clear and united voice, 

hearing your concerns. In speaking for the Secretary, he made two 

visits up here. He personally heard many of those concerns firsthand. And I can’t say enough how much that played in making his 

decision. 

Chairwoman WATERS. All right. The power of the people. Okay. 

Thank you. 

Next, I will call on my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for 

his questions. 

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairwoman, with your permission, I will 

yield my time to Congressman Ed Towns with regard to this. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Oh, thank you very much. 

Mr. Towns? 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me thank my colleague, Congressman Shays, for 

yielding to me. And of course, I am delighted that he is here in 

Brooklyn; he is our next-door neighbor, as you know, from Connecticut. 

Let me just begin by asking a question in terms of the word ‘‘incentive’’ that has been used. What kind of incentives do you think 

might be used to keep Starrett City affordable? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, I will give you an answer not just for 

Starrett City, but as to all these properties, the thousands of them 

across the country that have mortgages on them. And part of those 

mortgages— 

Mr. TOWNS. I am sorry. They can’t hear you in the back. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Here we go. 

12

Mr. TOWNS. Okay. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. A lot of properties across the country, including Starrett City, have mortgages, and these mortgages will eventually mature in time. It is critical that before mortgages mature, 

we offer incentives, whether we restructure a financial transaction, 

whether we provide more rental assistance, that we give the right 

incentive to the property owner to keep it affordable. 

And so as the population is growing and the demographics are 

changing, we have to be very aware in following those changing demographics, to make sure that we have more affordable housing. 

We can speak a lot for the production of new affordable housing, 

but I promise you that we are going to be doing everything we can 

to hold on to what we have. 

Mr. TOWNS. Yes, let me be—enhanced vouchers have been used 

in terms of ways and methods so that it will stay affordable. But 

my understanding of enhanced vouchers is that it is tied to the tenant, and that if the tenant moves—and I am not sure exactly the 

number of people who move out of Starrett per year, but what happens if the person who moves has an enhanced voucher? Does that 

voucher stay with the apartment, or does it go with the person? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes and no. It depends on whether it is a 

project-based property or a tenant-based property. 

But let me add one thing to your point, if I could, Mr. Chairman, 

and that is, many times the families will take a voucher because 

someone says, ‘‘Well, here, take a voucher. You can choose the 

apartment you need.’’ In the same way, maybe they are working 

and living downtown, and maybe they work in a hospital, or maybe 

they are a school teacher, and the housing market is so dense and 

tight in the downtown area that the only option that they have now 

is to move way out into the suburbs. And they may not want that. 

So now they are spending more time and more money in commuting. 

And my personal opinion is, there is a good place for vouchers, 

enhanced or not, but it is not a cure-all, in many cases, for particular family situations, especially when they have to move way 

out of the city’s central area. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me make sure that I phrase this properly, that—

you know, sometimes we have owners who will give poor service to 

try and force tenants out. And once they force them out, then they 

can increase the rent for that apartment. 

So they are saying, if I don’t give them services, and I don’t give 

them heat, then they will move, and when they move, then I can 

get more money for the apartment. 

What do you have to guard against that kind of activity? Because 

we know of things like that here in the Borough of Brooklyn. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, I have to say that we have a very good 

staff at HUD who look out for that sort of activity. We do not allow 

that. And there have been cases where that has happened, where 

property owners purposely let projects run down, and then they 

say, look how bad the property is here. I need more money to 

rehab, or whatever, and then they are trying to raise the rent on 

folks. That just doesn’t make sense to us. 

13

So working with our fair housing staff, working with our field office staff, we try to enforce those rules, to make sure that doesn’t 

happen. But of course, you are right; it does happen. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me—and you might not be able to answer this 

on the spot, but I would like to have it answered at some point. 

How much would it cost the government to replace the current 

subsidies with enhanced vouchers here at Starrett City? How much 

would that cost? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have that off the top 

of my head, but I can get that for you. 

Mr. TOWNS. We would like to know that. 

So, Madam Chairwoman, on that note, I will yield back. And I 

would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for allowing 

me to go first, not being a member of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for your courtesy that you have extended to me. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Next, I will call on Congresswoman Velazquez for questions. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Montgomery, I want to ask you the right question. And that 

is, yes, you are saying that, for a second time, this sale has been 

rejected by HUD. But yet the New York Times, in an article that 

appeared today, said that the owners of Starrett City have announced that they will pay the mortgage to withdraw from the 

Mitchell-Lama program. 

If that happens, then what? Where do we go? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I just want to reiterate my previous warning: 

People can talk all they want. They can say all they want, the New 

York Times and others. Unless, whether it is the current Clipper 

Equity, or someone in the future, unless they bring a proposal to 

us that keeps this property affordable, we are not going to entertain that proposal. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How could you prevent them from paying or 

withdrawing from their mortgage? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, at some point, there will be, certainly, 

a mortgage on the property. At some point, it will mature. And let 

me say that this is happening to properties all over the country, 

but more than 90 percent of owners elect to stay in the program. 

We are embarking on a way to provide those tools to keep the property affordable, to keep the rents affordable. 

If and when that ever happens here—it could be 10 years, 50 

years, or whatever—I can’t speak for who may be in HUD, but it 

will be our goal to keep this affordable for the long term. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Assistant Secretary Montgomery, HUD has not 

issued clarified regulations on the administration of enhanced 

vouchers, especially in terms of the owners’ obligation to accept the 

voucher, and family unit size mismatches. 

When is HUD planning to announce a clarification to the regulation, especially since the owner of Starrett City relied heavily on 

enhanced vouchers? And if there is a third proposal, will it rely 

again on enhanced vouchers? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Congresswoman, that program is administered through another office and not through mine. But I can certainly get the answer to that question. 

14

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well, I don’t want an answer, Mr. Montgomery. 

I want HUD to understand that this is a very important issue, if 

we want to keep affordability. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That is it for now. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to turn 

to Congresswoman Yvette Clarke for questions. 

Ms. CLARKE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding his time to another nonmember of this committee, and to just ask a couple of questions of the Assistant Secretary. 

Mr. Montgomery, you mentioned that in order to sort of prevent 

this type of occurrence around the Nation in urban areas, there is 

a way that we could monitor more centrally. I want to ask whether 

the establishment of that practice has been embedded at HUD yet. 

And have you put a mechanism in place that would actually 

monitor maturing mortgages to expedite negotiation and intervention, so that we can mitigate any practices of predatory speculation? 

You know, when I was on the New York City Council, we had 

the unfortunate incident of a huge sale of affordable housing, called 

Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village. That sent a chilling effect to working people in the City of New York. And then, on the 

heels of that, we have this struggle out here at Starrett City. 

My concern is that the Agency itself recognize that we are in a 

totally new climate and that best practices are embedded in the 

agency itself, so that we don’t come to the table like this 3 years 

from now or 5 years from now. 

Would you speak to that, sir? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, I am sure this won’t surprise you, but 

we are not perfect at that by a long stretch. And referencing affordable housing proposals made over the last month, and obviously 

someone who attended that spoke to your staff, that this issue was 

front and center among three or four presentations that day. 

Yes, we do a much better job monitoring those mortgages that 

are close to maturing, to make sure that we don’t reach within the 

last 3 or the last 6 months. We have been working, I think, with 

a group representing the tenants, the folks in these apartments, to 

make sure that we can have a better early warning system to do 

everything we can—and it may be that the owner wants to get out 

after the mortgage matures—so that we could be doing a better job 

to make sure we get to the owners, so that we can keep them. 

As I mentioned before, we have a pretty good success rate at 

keeping that property affordable. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Sir, are you saying that HUD is committed to 

establishing a unit within the bureaucracy that will be focused on 

this? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Whether it is called a unit, or an office or 

staff, we are committed to doing a much better job of doing this. 

And as I said, we got an earful of all those various things, those 

subjects last month, so— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. Will there be a point person that we can 

turn to, who would have their finger on the pulse of what is hapVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:48 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 038387 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38387.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
15

pening, not only in Brooklyn, but in Detroit, in Oakland, and in 

Minneapolis? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, right now, we are able to do it, but not 

probably as well as you are envisioning. But we do commit to you 

that we will do a much better job of organizing that, in an effort 

within our multifamily office. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairwoman, I would like to suggest that we sort of pursue this particular issue, and hold these folks accountable for not 

getting to the point where we want to go forward and not be ready. 

So I want to thank you, once again, for having this hearing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that another member of the 

committee would be joining us. He has joined us. Please welcome 

for questions Mr. Keith Ellison from Minnesota, one of our newer 

members. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

It is an honor and a pleasure to be here with you at this important subcommittee hearing. It is also wonderful to be in Brooklyn. 

I am honored to be on this panel with my colleagues, and very, 

very honored to be here with all of you. 

No doubt about it, your excellent attention to affordable housing 

is going to radiate throughout the country. And no question about 

it, coming out, standing up, sticking close to the issue is going to 

send a signal throughout the entire country, and let everyone 

know, even as far as Minnesota, that Brooklyn is setting a good 

pace for affordable housing in the United States. 

So, again, thank you all for your attention—everyone, one and 

all. 

Mr. Montgomery, I would like to ask you just a few questions. 

Given that the attempted sale at the Starrett housing development, 

given that it is the largest housing development in the United 

States, how does the effort to maintain housing affordability here 

impact the rest of our country? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I think that the key thing is in reference to 

what Congresswoman Clarke said, a better job on an early warning 

system. And we do know how many properties now are in our inventory. But the key thing is that we, as a Department, have triage 

efforts. Many of these properties do have mortgages that aren’t maturing, so that we can get to the owner or owners who have fulfilled their obligation to the government, by the way. They have 

had these mortgages 20 or 30 or 40 years that they have been paying on, and many of these owners just want to get out of the business. 

Preservation is one of our top priorities now. This is the Markto-Market program. This will be in connection with keeping these 

properties affordable, especially in high-cost markets like we have 

up here. 

Mr. ELLISON. Can you talk about the importance of programs 

that have helped people stay in their homes, such as rent assistance programs, Section 8 programs, that have helped supplement 

people’s incomes, so that they could stay in their homes? 

16

And what do you believe is the future of these programs? What 

is HUD’s commitment to maintaining the subsidy programs that 

help people maintain their status in their homes? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. There is a wonderful Federal program that 

we are all familiar with, called the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. It has been around since 1986. A bipartisan group passed that 

legislation 21 years ago. 

Now, while it is good at helping some families, some moderate 

and lower-income families, to have a roof over their heads, for 

those families with lower income—30 percent of median, 40 percent 

of median—it is not enough to have the subsidy to construct the 

property. We have to have the rental assistance. For many of the 

families, they have to have the rental assistance. 

The same is true for our section 202 program for elderly housing, 

and our section 811 program for persons with disabilities. We have 

to have at least those two programs to continue. If the only program is the tax credit, and we are going to help extremely lowerincome people, we have to have the rental assistance as well. 

Mr. ELLISON. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of 

senior housing? How much of the housing in the Starrett project 

is senior housing, and what are you doing to help our seniors maintain themselves in their homes here? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I am not aware of the exact number, but I 

know that it is in the hundreds, not the thousands, of seniors who 

live here. By the year 2030, it will 25 percent. Think about that; 

one out of four Americans will be over 65. And this is one issue I 

talk about a lot. John McCain talks about it, ultimately, so we can 

work to improve it. 

And when you think about it, not every senior is wealthy. You 

know, we have a great program for seniors who may be house rich 

but cash poor, a reverse mortgage. But there are a lot of low-income seniors who rely on affordable rental housing. 

The section 202 program, we think, will make a provision, so as 

to marry that better with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. A lot of States have—not enough, but many States have figured out how to do this on their own. 

We, as the Federal Government, are working—in fact, we have, 

as part of our retirement project, to marry those resources together 

so that HUD is not paying 100 percent of the cost of it. We may 

be paying 30 percent or 60 percent; the tax credits or States are 

making up the balance of it. And guess what happened? We were 

able to produce more housing. And that is something that we are 

working on very hard as part of our overall projects, the pilot program to do that for 202. 

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to thank you 

again for holding this committee hearing. I am looking forward to 

more dialogue. 

And I just want to congratulate the residents again for their active participation, because, when people get involved, that is when 

changes happen. When politicians feel the heat, they see the light, 

and I think that this kind of hearing does that very well. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair notes that some of us may have additional questions. 

17

Yes. I am sorry. Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I do want to get to the next panel, but 

I wanted to ask you a few questions. 

Starrett City worked because there was a mortgage paid, financed by the Federal Government; there were tax incentives, 

write-offs, and there was rental assistance. And it seems to me, 

what gives you the power to reject this agreement was, in part, 

that there are still obligations that the owner has under existing 

requirements. 

That is not true in some instances, because in some cases, you 

may just have a mortgage. Or you may just have tax write-offs, or 

you may have rental assistance, but not all three. 

Congresswoman Velazquez asked a question that I need you to 

get into a little more deeply. In this case, you have a number of 

years where you have some leverage over the owners. In some 

places, in Connecticut and elsewhere, you are losing all that leverage. Now, one of the ways you are trying to keep this in affordable 

housing is in Mark-to-Market; that is one of your programs. 

But tell me, what tools do you need in order to be able to add 

other units still in affordable housing? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I will give you another example. We may 

have another—again, it is there approximately for 30 years—to fulfill these obligations. They have a new owner identified. The property is 30 years old and needs some rehab, it needs some updating; 

it may not have dishwashers, or whatever. 

The new owner comes in and has a very fair proposal. Also, he 

needs some equity, cash to help him with the rehab. He needs or 

she needs to raise those rents below—not a lot—to a level to offset 

the cost of that, but that has a cost to it. And it pains me when 

we have to turn down those sorts of budget-based rent increases 

because we can’t even afford to cover a modest increase in the 

amount of rent. 

Now, despite having said that, again a lot of owners are opting 

to stay in the program. But I believe, in my heart of hearts, you 

know, there has to be more for us, looking at the shift in demographics, the aging population. It has been a sort of a patchwork 

of programs now that has kept it together, but there is more that 

we have to be doing. 

And that is just one example right now. 

Mr. SHAYS. I want you to react to something I am going to say. 

It seems to me that what we should be doing is actively going 

to all the owners, particularly those that still have 5, 10, or 15 

years, and say, ‘‘We would like to renegotiate now. I will give you 

an opportunity to have a little better terms, put something in 

place, but have a guarantee that you will be in this market much, 

much longer.’’ 

Is that a part of the strategy of HUD, to go to these owners before we have lost all leverage with them? 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Absolutely. And in the case of the properties 

that offer fair market rent, in the Mark-to-Market program. On the 

other side of that coin, with the other market programs, we protected some 100,000 units of housing. 

It worked well in that instance, but in the instance where you 

don’t have those sorts of plans in place yet, we need to be doing, 

18

as I referenced earlier, a better job of identifying those properties 

in the market 5 or 10 years down the road, so we can maintain 

those affordable units. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Let me just conclude by thanking you for being here, and thanking Secretary Jackson for listening first to the tenants, showing, as 

a Republican, it is very important to lead, to see an Administration 

that is responsive to this. 

So I am particularly grateful to the Secretary and to you also for 

listening to our chairman and working so closely. 

My understanding is that Ed Towns can be a pain, but I wouldn’t 

describe our chairwoman that way. I understand that she has 

weekly visits with the Secretary. I have seen that occur. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. That is called ‘‘keeping it real.’’ 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this witness which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to this witness, and to 

place his responses in the record. 

This panel—Mr. Montgomery, thank you so very much—is now 

dismissed. And I would like to welcome our second panel. Thank 

you very much. Thank you. 

I am pleased to welcome our distinguished second panel. Our 

first witness will be Ms. Deborah VanAmerongen, commissioner, 

New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. 

Our second witness will be Mr. Shaun Donovan, commissioner, 

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. 

Our third witness will be Mr. Frederick C. Arriaga, counsel, Borough of Brooklyn. 

Our fourth witness will be Ms. Marie Purnell, president, Starrett 

City Tenants Association. 

Our fifth witness will be Ms. Jerilyn Perine, executive director, 

Citizens Housing and Planning Council. 

Our sixth witness will be Mr. Rafael Cestero, senior vice president, Enterprise Community Partners. 

And our final witness will be Ms. Shirley Pazant, Starrett City 

resident and ACORN member. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made part of 

the record. 

I will now recognize each of you for a 5-minute summary of your 

testimony. And we are going to go back to Ms. VanAmerongen. 

Tell me how to pronounce your name. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. It is van-amer-on-gen. 

Chairwoman WATERS. VanAmerongen. We will start with you. 

Thank you very much. You are recognized for a 5-minute summary. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH VANAMERONGEN, COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY 

RENEWAL 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, particularly our Representatives from here in New York State, Congresswoman VelazVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:48 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 038387 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38387.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
19

quez, Congressman Towns, and Congresswoman Clarke. And I 

would like to thank you for your leadership on these issues in 

Washington. 

It is a pleasure to provide testimony regarding Starrett City and 

New York State’s efforts to preserve affordable housing opportunities for our citizens. 

My name is Deborah VanAmerongen, and I am the commissioner 

of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. We are an agency that is dedicated to developing partnerships and supporting community efforts to provide equal access to 

safe, decent, and affordable housing. 

The State Division of Housing administers housing development 

and community preservation programs, oversees and regulates the 

State’s public and publicly assisted rental housing, administers the 

rent regulation system in the City of New York and surrounding 

counties, and also oversees the Mitchell-Lama housing stock. 

Prior to becoming commissioner of the State Division of Housing, 

I was a HUD Director of Multi-Family Housing for the New York 

City Region. From there, I oversaw the portfolio of federally financed affordable housing the New York City area. And in my role 

at HUD, I became very familiar with Starrett City and its unique 

character. 

I am both humbled and honored that Governor Spitzer selected 

me to serve the people of the State of New York as commissioner 

of DHCR. I am humbled to be charged with the responsibilities of 

this position at a time when we face a critical shortage of affordable housing. And I am honored to be part of an administration 

that clearly recognizes the significance of our existing affordable 

housing stock, and is committed to preserving it. 

There is no doubt that housing is vital to the future of our Nation. And as Governor Spitzer has stated, the affordability crisis we 

face threatens to, as he stated, strangle future economic growth 

and crush the dreams of families, young and old. 

The Mitchell-Lama program, of which Starrett City is a part, has 

helped us address this problem, and has provided affordable housing opportunities to hundreds of thousands of middle-income families. 

Mitchell-Lama was established in 1955 to serve low- and moderate-income New Yorkers. It was named for the legislation’s sponsors, Senator Mitchell and Assemblyman Lama, and it serves as a 

national model for successful affordable housing. 

Despite its successes, the Mitchell-Lama program now faces 

grave threats that demand creative solutions. From the original 

portfolio of 270 State-financed Mitchell-Lama developments, 190 

remain under DHCR’s supervision. Many of these are in dire need 

of costly repairs, updates, or major overhauls of heating systems, 

roofs, or elevators. 

The maelstrom that resulted over Clipper Equity’s proposed sale 

of Starrett City is a perfect illustration of the challenges we face. 

We cannot build our way out of our housing crisis. We must maintain and preserve what we have. 

It was in my first week as Commissioner that Clipper Equity 

signed its contract to purchase Starrett City. The purchase price, 

an astronomical $1.3 billion, raised immediate concerns that the 

20

purchaser would be unable to retain Starrett City’s long-term affordability and continue the high-quality maintenance of the complex. 

As a regulating agency, DHCR was asked, along with HUD, to 

review Clipper Equity’s proposal and approve the sale and the refinancing of Starrett City, making us a central figure in the battle 

to protect Starrett City’s residents and keep its nearly 6,000 units 

affordable. 

DHCR concluded that in addition to a purchase price that was 

far too high to support the mortgage at current rent levels, the 

plan failed to adequately ensure long-term affordability at Starrett 

City. We therefore rejected the proposal and have not been approached again, thank you. 

Perhaps the most significant lesson that we learned from 

Starrett City is that when various levels of government speak with 

one voice to protect the public, we can accomplish great things. 

DHCR, HUD, the New York State Housing Finance Agency, 

which holds the mortgage on Starrett City, and the New York City 

Department of Housing Preservation and Development, under the 

leadership of Shaun Donovan, mobilized together to communicate 

the importance of Starrett City’s long-term affordability to the community, the owners, the prospective buyer, and the tenants. I am 

convinced that this unprecedented level of cooperation and coordination was a major factor in our success in keeping Starrett City 

as viable, affordable housing. 

I am equally confident that this experience will serve to make us 

an even stronger force together in the face of any future challenges 

to our affordable housing stock. 

I have to thank Senator Schumer for his steadfast support and 

commitment to preserving Starrett City and protecting its residents. He was instrumental in this effort. Senator Schumer, along 

with Congressman Towns, City Council President Quinn, Assemblyman Lopez, and Councilman Barron really provided extraordinary leadership, and they led the charge to rally the tenant organizations in opposing the sale. Their support was invaluable. 

I also have to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of Marie 

Purnell of the Tenants Association and of ACORN. They worked together to organize an extremely effective campaign to oppose this 

sale. 

As DHCR forges ahead with our mission to provide access to 

safe, affordable housing, we do so with renewed energy and a clear 

mandate for change. Governor Spitzer has declared the preservation of affordable housing a top priority of his administration. Our 

agency is now proactively engaged in a long-term strategy to seek 

and develop opportunities for preservation. 

New York State has been a leader in the creation of affordable 

housing, and now we must lead the way towards its preservation 

for the future. I would like to briefly share with you some of the 

things that we are doing at the State level to answer the Governor’s call. 

We are working closely with the Housing Finance Agency to assess the State’s Mitchell-Lama portfolio. And I think this goes to 

some of the conversations you were just having with Assistant Secretary Montgomery. We are trying to take a proactive approach to 

21

our Mitchell-Lama housing stock, and to look at those developments before a sales contract is entered into. Before we hear about 

something in the newspaper, we are reaching out to the owners of 

those developments to say we want to talk to you about preservation, about what tools we can bring to the table. 

We are collaborating to find the most effective preservation tools 

to encourage those owners to remain in our affordable housing programs. 

We are also in the process of closely reviewing the properties financed in the early years of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit 

program. We currently have more than 2,000 units that are beyond 

their first 15 years of occupancy, and another 15,000 set to pass 

that mark in the next 5 years. We are looking closely at this portfolio, as well, to determine which of those properties may need rehabilitation or should be targeted for other preservation efforts. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I am sorry. The time has expired. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Okay. 

Chairwoman WATERS. We have to make sure we get all of our 

panel in today. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. All right. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. So we have to move on. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. VanAmerongen can be found on 

page 78 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Next, Mr. Shaun Donovan. Commissioner, 

thank you. We are going to ask you to keep your testimony to 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. DONOVAN. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and members of the subcommittee. I am Shaun Donovan, commissioner of 

the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, or HPD, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 

about affordable housing preservation, and Starrett City, in particular. 

It is a testament to the subcommittee’s commitment to affordable 

housing preservation, and to the advocacy of our wonderful New 

York City delegation, that you are here today. 

HPD’s mission is to promote quality housing and viable neighborhoods for New Yorkers. As the Nation’s largest municipal housing 

development agency, we partner with private, public, and community stakeholders to strengthen the neighborhoods of our City. 

To meet that challenge, Mayor Bloomberg has undertaken the 

10-year New Housing Marketplace Plan to fund the construction 

and rehabilitation of 165,000 affordable apartments and homes by 

2013. We have already reached almost 40 percent of our goal. 

Nearly 65,000 new or preserved units of affordable housing have 

been funded, as of the end of June. 

Keeping Starrett City affordable is a priority for Mayor 

Bloomberg and the City of New York. Starrett City is one of the 

most complex and heavily subsidized properties in the country, and 

there are many lessons to be learned here. 

22

Nearly three-quarters of the units in Starrett City receive a J–

51 property tax exemption from the City, which supported rehabilitation of the property and makes the units subject to rent stabilization if the complex were to buy out of the Mitchell-Lama program. 

That is something that hasn’t been mentioned before today, that I 

think is extremely important. 

Given all of the public investment in Starrett City, the number 

of units in the development, and the strong desire on the part of 

the current residents to remain here, it is easy to see why so many 

public officials support keeping Starrett City affordable. While 

HPD does not have the same right of approval for a potential sale 

of Starrett City as the State and Federal housing agencies, we have 

been working closely with our governmental partners to evaluate 

the potential sale. This has been an ongoing and particularly effective collaboration and is a great example of the impact that various 

levels of government can have when we work together, as Congresswoman Velazquez stated earlier. 

We are very concerned that there is no viable way for Starrett 

City to remain affordable and well-maintained at the proposed sale 

price of $1.3 billion. This view is reinforced by Clipper’s own plan 

for the property. They are asking to raise the rent above what is 

allowed by current regulations, despite the fact that the large majority of the units are covered by the J–51 program that I mentioned, which requires them to remain at affordable Mitchell-Lama 

rents or in rent stabilization. At the same time, they are asking for 

a continuation of the $50 million tax abate—property tax abatement from the City. 

In short, the only way for this proposal to work is for the proposed buyer to obtain rents that are market rate, and to obtain a 

maximum infusion of subsidies from the Federal, State, and city 

governments. This will not occur. Clipper Equity’s proposal is a 

mistake for affordable housing and a mistake for taxpayers. 

We are extremely pleased with HUD Secretary Jackson’s decision 

to deny Clipper Equity the right to buy the development and the 

similar determination by the New York State Division of Housing 

and Community Renewal to reject it, as well. And let me say, I am 

particularly encouraged by the new focus on preservation that the 

Spitzer administration has brought, and Deborah VanAmerongen 

has brought. 

I also would have to say that HUD has been an absolutely critical partner in New York City’s preservation efforts, as Assistant 

Secretary Montgomery talked about in his testimony. Yet, we believe there are many more opportunities for cooperation, especially 

if Congress were to pass affordable housing preservation legislation. 

As I mentioned, over 2,300 units in Starrett receive rental assistance payments, or RAP, which pay the difference between what a 

low- or moderate-income tenant can afford to pay and the actual 

contract rent paid to the owner. RAP, along with its counterpart 

program, rent supplement, or Rent Supp, is decades old and antiquated. 

There are more than 35,000 RAP and Rent Supp units nationwide, across 34 States. Unlike the newer, project-based Section 8 

program that replaced them, RAP and Rent Supplement contracts 

23

can be terminated at any time and are not renewable. The RAP 

contract ends at Starrett in 2016, along with the guarantee of affordable housing for 2,300 families. 

A solution would be legislation that allows owners with RAP or 

Rent Supp contracts to convert to project-based Section 8. There 

are benefits to both owners and tenants. Owners get the option of 

getting fair rents from HUD at no cost to the tenants and the option to renew the contract, a very appealing option in strong markets such as New York and California. Tenants get better protection, because there are greater incentives for an owner to continue 

in the Federal program, and should the owner choose to leave the 

program, the tenants are guaranteed a housing voucher that allows 

them to stay in their home. 

Converting the RAP contract at Starrett to a project-based Section 8 contract is, in my view, the single most effective way to preserve affordability at Starrett City. 

While opt-outs pose a major threat to the Federal stock of affordable housing in strong market areas, there is also the problem of 

HUD-insured distressed housing in danger of foreclosure. While, in 

the past, units of local government were able to exercise their statutory right of first refusal to purchase these properties from HUD 

and maintain them as affordable housing, changes in HUD’s property valuation methodology have effectively suspended the program. 

HUD is interpreting language in the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005, the DRA, as requiring them to disregard the repair needs of 

a property when valuing it for a right of first refusal. This change 

has meant that HUD is asking above market price for properties. 

As a result, no properties have been sold under right of first refusal 

in the entire country since passage of the DRA. Legislation, as contained in Congresswoman Velazquez’s bill, H.R. 44, and in H.R. 

1852, is needed to require HUD to fairly value properties when 

selling to units of local government. 

And let me just take a moment to compliment Congresswoman 

Velazquez for her focus on housing preservation and affordability. 

Senator Schumer has also been very helpful in trying to find a solution to this problem in the Senate. In New York City alone, we 

believe we can preserve thousands of units of affordable housing if 

the right of first refusal were reinstated. 

There are a number of other potential preservation measures 

that we recommend in my written testimony, and I will leave those 

for the record later. 

In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

and for prioritizing affordable housing preservation. The subcommittee’s leadership has been crucial to the success we have had 

in developing and preserving affordable housing in New York City, 

and across the Nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan can be found on page 

60 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Mr. Arriaga? 

24

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK C. ARRIAGA, COUNSEL, BOROUGH 

OF BROOKLYN 

Mr. ARRIAGA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, 

members of the subcommittee, and Members of Congress. 

My name is Frederick C. Arriaga. I am counsel for Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and I am here on behalf of Borough President Markowitz, to read the following testimony: 

Thank you for holding this hearing at Starrett City, which, as we 

know, is the epicenter of the fight to preserve affordable housing 

in New York City and America. 

Starrett City is the epitome of successful, modern, diverse, and 

affordable urban living anywhere. And make no mistake, as 

Starrett City goes, so goes affordable housing in this Nation. 

Starrett City has over 16,000 tenants, 5,881 units in 56 buildings 

on 153 acres of land. In fact, the development is so large that it 

has its own security force, and publishes a newspaper called The 

Spring Creek Sun. 

And yet, Starrett City’s immensity is humanized by its remarkable sense of community. Every day in Starrett City, thousands of 

tenants of different races, religions, ethnicities, national origins, 

and incomes live peacefully, side-by-side. 

Starrett City is an example of how partnerships between tenants 

and government agencies can build, maintain, and preserve quality 

affordable housing. 

And by the way, the Starrett City Tenants Association and its 

President, Marie Purnell, are to be commended for their tireless efforts to preserve affordable housing and to improve our quality of 

life. 

We are here today because the very existence of Starrett City 

and other affordable housing developments is threatened. Seven 

months ago, when Starrett City was put up for sale, I joined a 

group comprised of residents, housing advocates and elected officials at every level of government to learn more about the proposed 

sale and what its impact would be on residents and the future of 

the development. 

We were dismayed that the sale would be conducted through a 

secret bidding process in which bidders signed confidentiality 

agreements with the seller. Without transparency, there was no 

way to communicate to the prospective bidders the importance of 

maintaining Starrett City as affordable housing. 

We were shocked when we learned of the winning bid, since we knew that the final bid of $1.3 billion would threaten the long-term 

affordability of the development. Fortunately, the Federal and 

State governments agreed with that conclusion and rejected the 

proposed sale. 

By the way, I commend and offer my continued support to HUD 

Secretary Alphonso Jackson and New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Commissioner Deborah 

VanAmerongen for their decisive action to reject the proposed sale. 

While the successful bidder has made assurances that Starrett 

City will remain affordable, I cannot help but join residents who 

are concerned about the realization of those assurances in the future. We all fear that Starrett City will not be affordable for our 

children or our children’s children. 

25

The proposed sale of Starrett City has taught us the following: 

Voluntary plans to keep housing affordable do not guarantee affordability. When the homes of people who have resided in them for 

30 years are at stake, we need laws that determine affordability, 

not just the promises of developers. 

Government and regulatory agencies must continue to be vigilant 

in scrutinizing proposed sales of developments in affordable housing programs like Mitchell-Lama, both here in New York State, 

and in the project-based Section 8 program nationwide. 

HUD, DHCR, and other State housing agencies must retain oversight and regulatory jurisdiction over affordable housing programs. 

In fact, the scope of that jurisdiction needs to be expanded and 

strengthened, so that owners comply with all affordable housing 

regulations. Furthermore, Federal and State government agencies 

must be given a mandate, and must have the authority to guarantee that owners provide tenants with not only affordable housing, but housing that is also clean, safe, and secure. 

We need legislation on the books to protect tenants in buildings 

whose owners do leave Mitchell-Lama and project-based Section 8 

programs. Long-standing tenants should not be subjected to market 

rate rents if their developments opt out of an affordable housing 

program. 

With regard to vouchers, while enhanced vouchers allow eligible 

tenants to pay rent increases after a development opts out of a program, vouchers present three significant deficiencies: 

Vouchers do not guarantee that the unit remains affordable for 

future tenants when the voucher is issued to the current tenant 

and is portable. 

And even tenants who are eligible for enhanced vouchers may 

lose their vouchers for failing to certify, a complicated and often 

harrowing process. Other tenants may run the risk of losing their 

eligibility because of the dizzying variety of factors that affect that 

eligibility. 

And the third deficiency regarding vouchers is the fact that they 

are subject to funding. What happens if funds for enhanced vouchers are reduced or eliminated? How will tenants pay the increases 

that result from their development, leaving the Mitchell-Lama program? 

Until these issues regarding enhanced vouchers are addressed, 

tenants in Mitchell-Lama developments who face potential buyouts 

are not fully protected. 

And finally, in closing, New York’s booming real estate market 

has made affordable housing very appealing to real estate developers. Many developers pledge that the buildings will remain affordable after purchase, but we cannot rely solely on those promises. There is too much at stake. 

Starrett City is the pride of Brooklyn, and I applaud the Congress Members’ efforts to preserve affordable housing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arriaga can be found on page 49 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Next, we will hear from Ms. Marie Purnell, the president of the 

Starrett City Tenants Association. 

26

STATEMENT OF MARIE PURNELL, PRESIDENT, STARRETT 

CITY TENANTS ASSOCIATION 

Ms. PURNELL. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Waters. Thank you 

so much for coming to Starrett City, and I also thank all of the 

members of your board. I can’t read all the names, so I am just 

going to leave it at that, and thank you from the bottom of my 

heart. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are welcome. 

Ms. PURNELL. My testimony is a little different from the ones you 

have been hearing. It is more of a human nature type of thing. 

I have lived in the East New York section of Brooklyn for about 

50 years. I lived in the Cypress Hills city projects for about 20 

years. I remember that letters had gone out to check for the 

public’s interest if a condominium or cooperative development were 

to be built on the vacant land by Jamaica Bay. Eventually, the decision was made to build affordable housing, Starrett City. 

My son, who had seen the Starrett development go up, asked me 

why we couldn’t live there. I told him that it was not affordable for 

us. At the time, my rent at Cypress Hills was $155 a month. Moving to Starrett would have cost $285 for a two-bedroom apartment 

with a terrace. 

I knew I had to do what was necessary, so I saved and cut corners to make sure that if the interview process was successful, I 

would be able to manage this. I saw the model apartments in 1975, 

and in 1976, my son and I moved into the development. 

Starrett City is my home, plain and simple. My family has always been happy and content here. My son grew up, got married, 

and moved into his own apartment in Starrett, where he raised his 

daughter. As a teenager, my granddaughter got her first job at 

Starrett City, and I got involved in all the activities, such as the 

Judo Club, the teen basketball club, the Lions Club, and within 5 

years, I became involved with the Starrett City Tenants Association, Inc. 

Coming to Starrett in my mid-40’s let me feel like I had a second 

chance at providing a good lifestyle for my family, and 30 years 

later, I feel that I have succeeded. I was working full time at Chase 

Manhattan Bank, where I eventually became an assistant treasurer, and I was able to commute to work on a private bus line, now 

being run by the MTA bus service, to Manhattan. Shopping was 

convenient. I felt that I was providing properly for my family and 

the quality of life was great. My son and I knew that once we 

crossed Flatlands Avenue into Starrett, we were safe, thanks to the 

private security in place at Starrett City. 

When I retired from the bank, I became more active in the Tenants Association and took the position of building rep at my building where I live. 

My main concern with the sale of Starrett City is the changes 

that clearly will have to occur. I don’t see how the rent would stay 

affordable. I am concerned about services that are in place, such 

as maintenance, security, and the accessibility to management. 

My neighbors have expressed the same concern. There are many 

unknowns, and that makes people nervous, resistant, and apprehensive. It is very difficult to engage with such an audience. 

27

My quality of life is excellent, as I have indicated before. Something as simple as a terrace and a garage to park safely give me 

so much pride. And I am renting, but I feel like an owner. I am 

concerned about the services being cut, particularly security and 

maintenance. If one needed repairs within the apartment, a simple 

phone call to the maintenance office was all that had to be done. 

Public Service, as we are now calling our security, is also on call 

for all situations of unbelievable occurrence. I recall having a personal medical situation, and before EMS could arrive on the scene, 

Starrett’s security officers were with me, comforting me, and I felt 

so much safer knowing that this was possible because of where I 

lived. 

To further the quality of life issue, I think that the relationship 

among the tenants should be noted. Again, I had a personal experience tied to my medical emergency that I had just spoken of, where 

I was bedridden for approximately 3 months. My next-door neighbor, who has roots back to Russia, literally prepared and fed me 

breakfast for my entire time of disability. She cared for me every 

single day, among other tenants. This type of country-like atmosphere can only be fostered in a neighborhood where the tenants 

truly care for each other and will step up and treat each other with 

the respect and dignity that one would find in a family. As far as the sale is concerned, I don’t see how a $1.3 billion 

price tag could not affect the quality of my life. Where is the money 

coming from to pay for the services if so much money is being paid 

for the development? How many people will be forced to move, thus 

changing the entire mission of the Starrett community? 

I have to believe that I will definitely get a rent increase. Depending on the percentage, it is doubtful that I could remain here. 

I am already paying 30 percent of my Social Security and retirement income. A high increase will definitely affect my ability to reside in the home that I have been in for over 30 years. 

I think that there will definitely be a change to the subsidies. I 

don’t have enough detail about Mitchell-Lama, but the owner opting out of the program clearly cannot be beneficial to the tenants 

who are participating in the program. I am currently a participant 

in the RAP program and do not know if this program will stay in 

effect. 

As far as prepaying the mortgage, I don’t have enough information—I have it now, though—to testify to this. Truth be told, I do 

not know who holds the mortgage right now. We were thrown into 

a situation, and we are learning day-by-day as to the rules, regulations, and repercussions behind the sale, housing laws, etc. 

Management did assure us, however, that Starrett would not be 

sold back in September 2006. They also said that 90 percent of the 

tenants would not be affected. However, in December 2006, just before the holidays, we learned on the news that a deal was being 

made to sell the development. We had three meetings at this time 

with Carol Deane, representing her husband/owner, Disque Deane, 

their nephew, Kurt Deane, who is apparently managing the business operations and— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Purnell? I am so sorry. Your time has 

expired. Could you wrap it up for us? 

Ms. PURNELL. Yes, I can. 

28

A single meeting, which basically consisted of a meeting that we 

had of a PowerPoint presentation by Clipper, ACORN, and the Office of the City Council. Clipper, however, didn’t say much of anything which would yield any constructive information in the opinion of the STA, but they did promise future meetings, none of 

which materialized. 

They would not give the STA Board clear answers, and this is 

why we turned down the tenants’ meeting. Tenants were really 

feeling concerned about the information we were receiving. 

The first thing that is pertinent to the tenants is the immediate 

end of the secrecy by owners and potential buyers. Transparency 

is critical. There should be notices available to tenants, just like we 

have right now, when they want to inform us of rent increases. The 

Starrett Tenants’ Association is willing to work with management 

to keep tenants in the loop. 

We should acknowledge that the sale will go on, no matter, to 

someone. It should be expected that some things will change. What 

we in Starrett have grown used to will change. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Purnell? 

Ms. PURNELL. However, retention of all subsidy programs should 

be a priority. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Purnell, we are going to have to hear 

the rest of—we will get your testimony, and we will insert it in the 

record. 

Ms. PURNELL. Okay. 

Chairwoman WATERS. We got the point. You did it well. Thank 

you very, very much. 

Ms. PURNELL. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Next, we will hear from Ms. Jerilyn 

Perine, executive director, Citizens Housing and Planning Council. 

STATEMENT OF JERILYN PERINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CITIZENS HOUSING AND PLANNING COUNCIL 

Ms. PERINE. Good morning. My name is Jerilyn Perine, and I am 

the executive director of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council, one of New York City’s oldest civilian research and policy organizations. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to testify. And I particularly would like to welcome our members from 

outside of New York to Brooklyn. 

The sale of Starrett City raises a primary public policy issue. 

What is the role of government when government-financed programs come to the end of their term? 

In Starrett City, and in many other projects, there is a widespread concern that the proposed purchase price is simply too high 

to allow for proper capital investment, maintenance, and the operation, raising questions about the intent of the proposed new owners and the future of the project’s physical and financial viability. 

Starrett City is but one example of a growing trend of high-cost 

purchases which raise grave questions as to the continued viability 

of such housing. 

In the case of Starrett City, as many as 20,000 people may bear 

the consequences. As this phenomenon grows, many more people 

are facing the same problem. 

29

Starrett City is the largest subsidized housing development in 

the United States, and has achieved affordability through a cornucopia of subsidy programs from every level of government. As a result, 62 percent of the households in Starrett City currently receive 

direct rental assistance. Another 1,600 of the apartments are restricted to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median. In total, 88 percent of Starrett City’s households earn less 

than 80 percent of the HUD area minimum. 

While it is clear that the government has a valid interest in this 

project, unfortunately most regulations are not currently designed 

to prevent potentially bad owners from purchasing such projects, 

nor do they mitigate against highly speculative prices which may 

call into question the future viability of the projects. And while 

Starrett City shows clearly what can happen when tenants are organized and can mobilize political pressure, legislative changes are 

required to ensure that the sale of all projects which were the beneficiary of significant government investment are properly reviewed 

and protected. 

That review should have two objectives: One, to evaluate the 

track record of the proposed purchaser; and two, to determine if the 

sale price is based on sound financial principles. 

Currently, HUD does have a process for that review. And in this 

case, they have determined that the proposed purchase would 

threaten the project’s future affordability. However, the review 

process is flawed. 

HUD currently reviews the new owner’s participation in other 

HUD projects, whether they are debarred by the Federal Government, whether they have been convicted of a crime, or whether 

they have defaulted on Federal or local housing finance agency 

loans. There is, however, a need to go further. And by going further, this needs to be codified in law and in rule. 

Congress did make some changes in 2004. However, they did not 

mandate a similar review where HUD-financed projects, not just 

HUD-owned projects like this one, were transferred from one owner 

to another. Congress should require such a review. Without such 

a mandated review, projects without the attention that Starrett 

City received will continue to be subject to a case-by-case review, 

sometimes with a good outcome, but not necessarily so. 

In New York City, as a result of an extremely hot real estate 

market, we have seen numerous purchases of rental housing, both 

regulated and unregulated, at prices that raise serious questions 

about the continuing viability of the buildings. 

Owners of subsidized projects such as Starrett City have a right 

to ask that the governments live up to their original deal, allowing 

an end to the restriction periods that were originally agreed to. At 

the same time, it is not unreasonable for the government to seek 

to ensure that its considerable investment remains financially and 

physically viable into the future. If additional affordability is desired, owners should be compensated. 

The State of New York is considering legislation to make reforms 

to their process. The details are in my written testimony. 

At the Federal level, Congress should mandate that the review 

of purchasers of federally subsidized housing should include the 

track record of the new owner beyond HUD-subsidized housing. 

30

The new owner’s performance on housing maintenance and construction should be reviewed by HUD in concert with local authorities, prior to HUD approving any such purchase. HUD should also 

review the purchase price to ensure that it is based on a reasonable 

expectation of rental income and future capital appreciation. 

This principle has been included in H.R. 44, introduced by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez in January of this year. Congress 

should pass it and the President should sign it. 

Last and most important, it is time to consider how to reconfigure some of our rent and tax subsidy programs, to target assistance to tenants in projects that may be sold. The Section 8 enhanced voucher program does this in part. However, it should be 

expanded to non-federally assisted projects such as Mitchell-Lama. 

The City and State should also consider real estate tax abatement 

programs that are geared to rewarding owners for keeping rents affordable. 

We are hopeful that your interest in the sale of this project will 

extend to all federally funded projects, and that you will pass H.R. 

44. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perine can be found on page 75 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Rafael Cestero, senior vice president, Enterprise Community 

Partners. 

STATEMENT OF RAFAEL CESTERO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS, INC. 

Mr. CESTERO. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to 

you today. 

My name is Rafael Cestero, and I am the senior vice president 

for field operations and program support at Enterprise Community 

Partners. 

Enterprise is a national organization, founded in 1982, that 

works with thousands of nonprofit organizations, local governments, financial institutions, and private corporations around the 

country to create and preserve over 215,000 homes, and has invested over $8 billion in communities across the country in the last 

25 years. 

The past decade has not been friendly to preserving affordable 

housing. Approximately 170,000 public housing units have been 

lost to neglect and deterioration, while much of the remaining public housing stock is in need of substantial renovation and rehabilitation. At the same time, 1.4 million units of privately owned, federally subsidized housing face preservation and rehabilitation challenges. 

The loss of affordable housing units is primarily due to owners 

who choose not to renew subsidized contracts, gentrifying markets, 

a continued uncertainty over tenant and project-based Section 8 appropriations, and tax depreciation recapture issues faced by many 

investors. 

However, despite these obstacles, Enterprise is committed to 

finding solutions to preserve affordable housing nationwide. In 

31

2006 alone, we have refinanced over 30 properties that had HUD 

financing or subsidies. These properties will now remain affordable 

for another 30 years, and the proceeds from refinancing will allow 

additional capital investment, increased support services, and are 

used to create more affordable housing units. 

Our experience shows that it costs much less to preserve than to 

replace. We estimate that the tax credit equity needed to rehabilitate an apartment is half of that needed to create a new one. 

We have also created partnerships with local, State, and Federal 

Government, which are making great strides towards preserving 

housing in those cities and States. 

Six years ago, only six States set aside 9 percent Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credits for affordable housing preservation. Today, 46 

States set aside credits in their qualified allocation plans. New 

York State and New York City allocate significant amounts of the 

9 percent tax credit allocation in their tax-exempt bond volume cap 

to preserve affordable housing. And over the last several years, this 

has led to the preservation of 40,000 units in New York City. 

One of the most crucial elements in preserving affordable housing is the ability to find capital to acquire property. To meet these 

needs, we have launched acquisition funds in New York City, the 

District of Columbia, and hope to close funds soon in Los Angeles 

and Atlanta, to allow nonprofit organizations to acquire affordable 

housing projects. 

In the District of Columbia Preservation Fund is an acquisition 

loan product which is strictly for preserving multifamily housing. 

This $28 million fund, with a combination of private and public 

funds, provides acquisition and predevelopment financing for nonprofit sponsors. To date, this fund has preserved 600 units of housing in the District of Columbia. 

As in the District of Columbia, the affordable housing challenge 

in New York City has never been more severe than today. While 

unsubsidized rents and affordability restrictions in programs like 

Mitchell-Lama are ended, the housing stock is quickly trending to 

rates only the wealthiest can afford. In 2004, Enterprise pledged $1 

billion to create and preserve 15,000 homes by 2008, in support of 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace Plan. We 

are now more than halfway there. 

Enterprise is committed to doing all it can to preserve such affordable housing complexes like Starrett City. We conducted an 

analysis in partnership with ACORN that is in my written testimony, that shows very clearly that $1.3 billion is not supported. 

We urge the passage of H.R. 44, as other members have, as well 

as the Federal laws that have been talked about in other testimony 

presented today. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I am sorry. Your time has expired. 

Mr. CESTERO. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cestero can be found on page 54 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Representing ACORN, Ms. Pazant. 

32

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY PAZANT, ACORN MEMBER 

Ms. PAZANT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, Members of Congress, Congressman Towns, and members of the committee. I 

thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today about the 

affordable housing situation in Starrett City. 

My name is Shirley Pazant, and I am a retired nurse. I have 

lived in Starrett for 8 years, and I am a very active member of the 

Association of Community Organizations for Reform, known as 

ACORN, and also a member of the Starrett City STA. 

I had attempted to move into Starrett City for 10 years, and 

when I finally got the call and I was able to move in, I was very, 

very happy. As a woman living on a fixed income, I feel it is safe 

and secure living here. I know that if we—whoever has to move, 

there will be nothing out there that will be as beautiful as Starrett, 

and nothing that would work for our income level. 

My grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren, look forward to 

coming to visit from Bed-Stuy because of the safe places available 

for them to run around and be children; that is really hard to come 

by in their home neighborhoods. 

Starrett City is truly our home. The neighbors come together as 

one big, happy family, regardless of race and culture. We have built 

a home here that could not be duplicated any other place. The community is a wonderful place not only for those of us who have retired here, but for every person at any stage of their life. 

So affordability has allowed parents to save for their children to 

go to college. Affordable rents and a welcoming, diverse community 

benefits everyone who has the pleasure of calling Starrett City 

their home. 

My testimony today will focus on the community’s concern with 

Clipper Equity as a potential owner of Starrett, especially in regard 

to affordability, as well as our group’s recommendations to local, 

State, and Federal representatives. Whether it be Clipper or another owner, many of our concerns are constructive as we look forward to what we will have to miss. 

The cornerstone of all of this is affordability. Ninety percent of 

the tenants here rely not only on low rent, but on the variety of 

rental assistance programs that have been available all these 

years. I am currently enrolled in the Section 8 program, as are 

other residents, many of whom are seniors. As seniors, we are very 

troubled by the idea that someone could come in here and displace 

our community by pricing us out. 

The research that ACORN and its partners have conducted 

shows that in order for Clipper Equity to keep Starrett affordable, 

they would have to receive huge additional government subsidies, 

reduce service, and raise rents. This is not a solution at all as far 

as we tenants are concerned. 

When it was announced that Clipper Equity would be buying 

Starrett, we decided to gather research on Clipper’s other complex 

in Brooklyn, the East Flatbush Gardens, better known as 

Vanderveer. We looked at the buildings’ department records for 

any violations, and we knocked on doors and talked to tenants. We 

got information about complaints about the lack of heat and hot 

water, holes in the ceilings, and unsanitary living conditions. 

33

In the process of our work, we discovered that Flatbush Gardens 

had almost 8,106 building code violations, and over 1,400 new violations logged in since Clipper took the property. I have copies here 

of a PowerPoint presentation about what we found, if anyone would 

like them. 

Starrett City is special not only because it is affordable, safe, and 

diverse, but because the grounds and buildings are beautiful and 

well maintained. If something goes wrong in our apartments, it 

gets fixed right away. This is clearly not the case at Clipper’s other 

properties. 

We know that there are economically viable and profitable solutions to keep Starrett City affordable that will not overburden the 

government and, more importantly, will allow the tenants to keep 

our homes, continue to receive key maintenance services, and 

maintain the economic diversity of Starrett City into the future. 

ACORN and the Starrett City Tenants Association stand united 

in our fight to make sure that Starrett City remains affordable, especially for future generations. 

Over the years, government has stepped in through a patchwork 

of subsidies that have allowed this development to develop into a 

place with such economic and racial diversity. Now, right now, we 

need local, State, and Federal legislation to protect tenants like us 

all around the country. We need you, and we need you now, to protect not only this generation of tenants, but also future generations 

from developers looking only to make a profit off of the communities. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Pazant— 

Ms. PAZANT. We have asked New York State to pass legislation 

so that any— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Pazant— 

Ms. PAZANT. —owner opting out of the Mitchell-Lama program 

be coupled by rent regulation— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Pazant, I am sorry. Your time has expired. You did a great job. Thank you very, very much. And thanks 

to ACORN all over the country. You are doing a fabulous job. 

Ms. PAZANT. I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to 

me and those I represent, ACORN, Starrett City, and the people 

who have worked hard all our lives. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pazant can be found on page 71 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Now, I want to take most of my 5 minutes 

to thank each of you. This has been an extraordinary example of 

what cooperation can and will do. 

And I think that you mentioned in your testimony, Ms. 

VanAmerongen—I am going to get this right— 

Mr. TOWNS. VanAmerongen— 

Chairwoman WATERS. —you mentioned in your testimony that 

this was a baptism by fire. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Yes, it was. 

Chairwoman WATERS. It was in your written testimony, rather, 

but you alluded to the fact that this overall proposal was really trying to get you to act beyond your statutory authority. 

34

Could you just give us an example of what that means, quickly? 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. What we found in the Clipper Equity proposal was that they were suggesting that we should allow them to 

call themselves Mitchell-Lama and claim to be maintaining affordability, to actually treat it differently than any other MitchellLama, or differently than what we believe our statutory authority 

allowed us to do. 

So, for instance, every Mitchell-Lama has to go through a budget-based rent increase process, and a review of the operations of 

the building, to try to keep the rents as low as possible, but provide 

enough money for them to operate. They wanted to have all of the 

rents set at market, and then subject to rent-stabilized, guaranteetype increases going forward. 

So those are the kinds of things that they were asking us to do, 

so that they continue to claim their real property tax benefits from 

the City of New York, and to say that they are maintaining affordability, call themselves a Mitchell-Lama, but they really would not 

have been. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Donovan, I know you are going to have to leave by 1:00, but 

you mentioned something that I think we certainly should be paying attention to as far as legislation, the conversion of RAP to Section 8. 

I didn’t realize we had such a program where there was some difference being paid between what was afforded by the tenant and 

the market rate in some way. It certainly should all be one program, and there may be some room for legislation here. 

Do you want to expound on that, before you go? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Absolutely. And I would say, in deference to HUD, 

one of the most effective things that they have done in New York 

City—and Deborah at the New York local office was instrumental 

in doing this—thousands of units of HUD housing have been preserved around New York City by the Mark-to-Market program. 

That program is only available to project-based Section 8 properties; it is not available to RAP and Rent Supp properties. So it 

is not just critical that the conversion of these old, antiquated—

they really were the predecessors to the project-based Section 8 

program, and it was fixed decades ago by inventing the new 

project-based Section 8 program. But these two dinosaurs, really, 

are still around. 

Not only can they not be renewed, as I said, so once it is gone, 

it is gone, and there is no chance for long-term preservation of the 

property for low-income people; in addition to that, there are all 

kinds of preservation opportunities available to project-based Section 8 properties that could help not only stop the Clipper proposal, 

but in fact, could for the current owner, or any new owner, make 

it more attractive financially to remain a low-income property than 

to convert to market rate. 

So again, I think that is particularly important. With this flexibility, the owners could win and the tenants could win, by continuing with the affordability of the property. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you so very much. And thank you 

for being here today. The cooperation between you and the State 

35

and the Feds is wonderful. We know you have to leave, but we 

really appreciate your presence. Thank you. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. And let me compliment you and your 

staff on all the hard work you have been doing around the country. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Well, you are certainly welcome. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Well, again, I will wrap up by thanking 

each of you. You see the power of the residents and the tenants, 

and because you decided to take leadership, you made something 

happen here. You should be very, very proud of that. 

So, Ms. Purnell and Ms. Pazant, I want to thank you very much. 

To our others who are represented here today, I want to mention 

to you—I don’t know if it was you, Mr. Arriaga, who mentioned 

that part of this agreement was supposedly confidential, and we 

didn’t know who the other buyers were. 

We should wipe that out. We should not allow that to happen on 

these kinds of proposed sales. We want to know who it is who is 

supposedly buying these. And so maybe that has some room for legislation, too, and I want to thank you very much for that. 

Again, here, we have the cooperation of a nonprofit in the business of providing affordable housing. Enterprise, you are showing 

up everywhere. You are showing up good. We thank you very much 

for your participation. 

Again, the residents are primary in everything. So thank you all 

very much, and I just appreciate your participation. Thank you. 

And I will turn to my colleague, Mr. Shays, for questions. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I do not have any questions, but I want to thank the government 

officials for being here. And I thank those in the community for 

coming to testify. 

I was struck by the fact that all the presentations were informative, they were forceful, and they were kind. It is very clear to me 

that Starrett City is a lovely place to live. 

I wanted to particularly thank you for the gentleness with which 

you are talking about a very emotional issue. That is a much better 

way to communicate and to make your points, and so I found that 

tremendous. 

I enjoyed talking with three young men who were sitting on the 

floor—one was in 2nd grade, one was in 4th grade, and one was 

going into 5th grade—and they just told me how much they love 

living in this wonderful community. You clearly are a family, and 

I look forward to seeing this family have a long and prosperous life. 

So thank you for having me. 

And thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman. And Mr. Towns, and 

to my other New York colleagues, congratulations on a job well 

done. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you so very much, Mr. Shays, for 

being here. It shows you that we have cooperation on both sides of 

the aisle. We don’t always get along on everything, but on Starrett 

City, we are together. 

All right. We are going to turn to Mr. Ellison for questions. 

Mr. Ellison, yes. 

Mr. ELLISON. My question for Mr. Cestero is this: 

36

Obviously, while Starrett City is the largest federally subsidized 

community, there are others around the country. What are your 

recommendations going forward? 

As we go forward, and we see that other such communities could 

be purchased, what are some of the things that we need to bear 

in mind? What are some of the proposals that you have to make 

sure that we can maintain affordability? 

Mr. CESTERO. It is quite clear, as you look around the country—

and you have heard it here today—that Starrett City is a unique 

property in many ways: It is unique in its size; it is unique in the 

kind of community that it is; and it is unique in the myriad of subsidies that have all come together in one place. 

But I do think that there are some lessons that we can learn 

from this and that we can learn from preservation activity that has 

happened in this State, in this City, and across the country. One 

I talked about in my testimony, which is access to acquisition capital. The reality is that nonprofit affordable housing groups around 

the country that are interested in preserving these types of properties don’t have the same access to capital that private owners do, 

so we need to continue to make that capital available. 

There are a number of proposals that have been put forth in 

Congress that I would urge you to consider, because they would 

have an enormous effect on preservation around the country. The 

restoration of a grant program, the Section 8, the project-based 

Section 8 that Commissioner Donovan spoke about, is incredibly 

important. 

And the early warning system that was talked about earlier is 

also incredibly important, so that we know what the properties are 

and when they are coming up. 

Mr. ELLISON. What about the proposal for a housing trust fund 

in the legislation chiefly authored by Congresswoman Waters? 

Have you thought about that? And what sort of help it could be to 

maintain affordability? 

Mr. CESTERO. There is no question that at the end of the day, 

more money makes the difference. And so the trust fund proposal 

that is put forth would bring more resources to the preservation of 

these projects; it can’t be done without an infusion of additional 

capital. 

And, in particular, the smaller properties are often in need of 

more rehabilitation, which means that we need additional subsidy 

dollars to be put on the table up front, in the form of a capital subsidy, that a trust fund would do. 

We are lucky in New York State. In New York City, we have a 

City government that puts an enormous amount of money into affordable housing. We have a State government that has been at the 

table and a leader in the affordable housing movement. For the 

rest of the country, that don’t have access to those resources, the 

national trust fund would provide more of those opportunities. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Madam Chairwoman, I just want to thank 

you again for allowing me to be a part of this important subcommittee hearing. Your leadership—you amaze me every single 

time I see you, Madam Chairwoman. 

37

And I just want to thank my colleagues, as well. And on my first 

trip to Brooklyn, I have had a great time so far. Thanks, everybody. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, everybody. 

Let me again begin by thanking the chairwoman for this hearing 

in Brooklyn, and to say to Congressman Ellison that I am proud 

that I was a part of the history, in terms of bringing him to Brooklyn. 

And I would just share one other first with you. I also was the 

first one to bring Bill Clinton to Brooklyn. I want you to know that, 

too. 

Let me direct my questions to, of course, Deborah 

VanAmerongen. I know you have been involved in housing for a 

number of years, and you have done great things. And some of the 

things we are talking about today that have sort of helped us along 

the way, are things that you have put in place. 

And let me ask you this: What do you suggest, as Members of 

Congress—let’s say we reverse positions, you know, for a moment—

what do you think that we need to do, as Members of the United 

States Congress, to bring about affordable housing? To make certain that we keep affordable housing, what can we do? 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. I appreciate your compliment, Congressman, and it has been a pleasure working with you on many developments here in Brooklyn over the years, both at HUD and now 

at the State Division of Housing. 

I think a lot of the legislative initiatives we have heard discussed 

here today would be of tremendous importance in being able to preserve housing. As Commissioner Donovan talked about, and it is 

something that, while I was at HUD, I talked to a lot of people 

about as well, the conversion of the older contracts to project-based 

Section 8. 

Addressing some of what the problems are in the HUD programs, 

in terms of the up-front grants, and the sale of HUD foreclosed 

properties, would be—as you know, we have had a number of those 

go through foreclosure, which is great that HUD is aggressively 

going after bad owners to try to take properties away from them. 

But we have to work to ensure that they end up with people who 

are going to be responsible owners and maintain them as affordable housing. 

And as the Congresswoman was talking about, the housing trust 

fund, which obviously we are very supportive of—and don’t mistake 

what Rafael said in saying that New York doesn’t need it. We need 

it, too. 

Chairwoman WATERS. We know that. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Even though we have great State and City 

programs, we would love to see a national housing trust fund be 

brought to our State, as well. 

I would like to see the work that HUD is talking about in terms 

of integrating their programs better with other programs. Getting 

section 202 and section 811 to work with the Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credit program is something that I am committed to doing, 

from the State perspective, as an administrator of the Low-Income 

Housing Tax Credit program. And the New York Regional Office 

38

has been in direct contact with us, and we have been talking about 

how to make that work here in New York. 

But there is—it could be done on the national level, and it would 

make it easier, but we would have to do a State-by-State solution 

to overcoming those kinds of problems. 

So again, keep working with HUD, bring in whatever resources 

you could to the table in advance, and some of those legislative initiatives that have been discussed would all be of great importance 

here in New York. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me—just to bring my colleagues up to date. The 

State had a hearing, as well, which I insisted they have. The State 

had the hearing here, had 10 members of the Assembly, you know, 

in this room, talking about housing. 

The one thing that came out of that, which I thought was quite 

interesting—and I want to take comments very quickly—they indicated that if a person is wanting to sell, they should give at least 

a 3-year notice. Now, I would like to just run down the line real 

quickly, on a sort of yea or nay, you know, type of thing. 

Do you think that that might help the problem? Because what 

they said, basically, is that if the seller gives notice, then the various agencies would have an opportunity to put things in place that 

would protect the tenants. 

Because what happens now, with the fact that there is no transparency, is that the only time you know about what is happening 

is when somebody has already made a bid. So—and that doesn’t 

give the agencies a lot of time to be able to correct or to make certain that people are protected. 

We have people in Starrett who have been there for over 30 

years—senior citizens, many of them on disability, who are scared 

to death, and can’t sleep at night, because they are concerned 

about the fact that their apartments might not be there. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. I had not heard of the 3-year proposal. One 

of the things that I know people are giving some thought to currently is, if you wanted to opt out or buy out of the program, you 

must give a 1-year notification, which is State law. And I think 

that it would be appropriate to look at whether we should apply 

that same notification to sales, as well. 

And I think, again it goes to what I was talking about in terms 

of us being proactive as agencies, though, in doing the outreach to 

owners. It is something that I didn’t have a chance to insert into 

my testimony, but it came up earlier, so I wanted to mention it, 

in terms of the mention in the New York Times today about what 

might happen if this sale does not go through. 

I think what we have—the word proactive isn’t just talk. We 

have reached out to the owners of Starrett City, and have said, you 

know, the time under their existing contract—they had 6 months 

to get government approvals on this sale. So that time has almost 

elapsed; early August is the end of that 6-month period. 

What we have done is reached out to them proactively, to say, 

before you make any other decisions about the future of this development, come and talk to us. Don’t make up your mind and go and 

sell it to somebody else, and we will have to go through this whole 

mess again. We want to be at the table, engaged in those conversations, address the needs of tenants, and that is—we have—that is 

39

the same thing we have to do with other owners in our portfolio. 

And as I said, we are reaching out proactively to many of them to 

talk about the future of their developments. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

And on that note, let me just thank all of you for your testimony. 

I really appreciate, you know, being allowed. I know I had asked 

the question earlier down the line, but I am going to have to pass 

on it. The chairwoman gave me a look, so— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Next, we will hear from our other Congresswoman, who came here today to give support to you in this 

district in what you are doing, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Let me first thank you, Madam Chairwoman, again 

for coming. And let me say that Congressman Towns is truly a visionary. He has brought Keith Ellison here for his first visit. He 

brought Bill Clinton. He leads the fight. He is certainly a visionary, 

and I am just hitching my star to his wagon. 

But let me say this, that when Maxine Waters comes to Brooklyn, you know it is about to be something. 

I wanted, first of all, to congratulate you, Commissioner. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Thank you. 

Ms. CLARKE. This is my first opportunity to actually meet you 

and to hear you, and I am encouraged. 

One of the things that I kind of get hung up on, being a new 

Member, is how ‘‘yesterday’’ the rules and regulations are in governing our lives and the way that we go about doing business in 

the United States of America. There is a lot of drag back into the 

20th century, and I am glad to see the type of innovation and enthusiasm you have in terms of making the transition which is in 

keeping with how modern we are as a society. 

I wanted to ask you, because I have heard over and over again—

and I have tried to distill best practices—I have heard, you know, 

from my constituents, from housing advocates, that there is a lot 

of pull in project-based Section 8. 

Can you give us any indication of where the State is going with 

respect to how it will be rolled out? What type of assistance you 

would need from the Federal Government to really embed that as 

the way for us to get out of the old traditions that are no longer 

applicable for community preservation and affordable housing? 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. I am not sure. Are you asking about how 

we would use project-based Section 8 to preserve our housing? 

Ms. CLARKE. We talked about the fact that RAP and— 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. The Rental Assistance Program. 

Ms. CLARKE. Right. It is antiquated? 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Yes. 

Ms. CLARKE. —and that we want to look at how we can do these 

conversions, and I don’t think you alluded to that point. 

Have you successfully done that already? Is there something that 

we need to do in Congress to make this happen? Because it is older 

cities, like New York City and some of the oldest cities around the 

Nation, that are stuck in between right now. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. 

It actually was done once before. In the beginning years of the 

project-based Section 8 program, HUD offered owners who had 

those older forms of subsidies that they could convert, and many 

40

of them took them up on the offer. But project-based Section 8 was 

new, and I think some of them weren’t sure about exactly what it 

meant and how it would work, so some of them didn’t do it. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

Ms. VANAMERONGEN. What they are saying, what we are saying 

now—and it would require congressional action to allow HUD to do 

that conversion, and it would reach out to the owners of those 

buildings; it would have no impact on the tenants—the rents of the 

tenants are set the same way under those older programs as they 

are in the project-based Section 8, and tenants pay 30 percent of 

their income. 

But what it would give HUD the opportunity to do—and all of 

us are working to preserve this housing stock—is the opportunity 

to reach out to those owners proactively and say, here are the preservation tools we have available under the project-based program, 

and we want to talk to you about how to do a long-term extension 

of that, mark the project up, do a restructure of the mortgage, 

whatever needs to be done. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. I think that is a strategy that we have 

to aggressively pursue, as we look at the erosion. 

I heard the gentleman from Enterprise talk about Washington, 

D.C., and as a new resident, I know exactly what the people of 

Washington, D.C., are going through right now in their housing 

market, and we see that increasingly here in New York City. 

Let me just close by saying to everyone here, specifically to the 

tenant leadership, how very proud I am to be here with you as a 

witness, as an advocate with you. I can see this going forward, how 

children will be able to talk of the day when you women and men 

took the time to sacrifice for them, to make your voices heard, to 

let people know that there are people who have made the sacrifice, 

and who have given their time, time and time again, and all they 

request is housing with dignity. 

You all have done that in royal style. I am so very proud to be 

here, and I will be here until the end. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

The Chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

Before we dismiss the panel, I would like to acknowledge Mr. 

Earl Williams and Ms. Jean Holden—where are you—and all of the 

staff at the Brooklyn Sports Club for your assistance in making 

this hearing possible. 

Also, before we adjourn, the written statements of the following 

individuals will be made part of the record of this hearing: 

Mr. David Bistricer, on behalf of Clipper Equity, and Mr. Disque 

Deane, on behalf of Starrett City Associates. 

To the residents, thank you for understanding your power. 

Thank you for having good representation in Mr. Towns and Mr. 

Schumer and others. Thank you for having great leaders in the 

agencies from the City, from the State, and of course, from the FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:48 Oct 30, 2007 Jkt 038387 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\38387.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
41

eral Government, who have come together and cooperated to make 

all of this happen. 

This is what I like to see, when government is using its power 

to assist people in the way that we should be doing. I feel so very 

good about being here. This is a beautiful development. You are 

wonderful representatives. We are dedicated and committed to the 

proposition that we can do this not only here at Starrett, but all 

over the country. 

Thank you very much. 

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X

July 10, 2007

44


38387.045
45


38387.046
46


38387.047
47


38387.048
48


38387.049
49


38387.001
50


38387.002
51


38387.003
52


38387.004
53


38387.005
54


38387.006
55


38387.007
56


38387.008
57


38387.009
58


38387.010
59


38387.011
60


38387.012
61


38387.013
62


38387.014
63


38387.015
64


38387.016
65


38387.017
66


38387.018
67


38387.019
68


38387.020
69


38387.021
70


38387.022
71


38387.023
72


38387.024
73


38387.025
74


38387.026
75


38387.027
76


38387.028
77


38387.029
78


38387.030
79


38387.031
80


38387.032
81


38387.033
82


38387.034
83


38387.035
84


38387.036
85


38387.037
86


38387.038
87


38387.039
88


38387.040
89


38387.041
90


38387.042
91


38387.043
92


38387.044