Hope VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007

HOPE VI IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - January 17, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which strikes the prohibition of the demolition-only grants from the HOPE VI, allowing HUD to retain its current authority to issue these grants as conditions warrant. The original goal of HOPE VI was to eliminate severely distressed public housing, and demolition-only grants continue to play an important role in achieving this goal.

Currently, HUD is allowed to grant demolition-only grants only when necessary and in instances that benefit the community. That means it will be done in consultation with the community. As a result, HUD provides these grants with great discretion. In fact, a demolition-only grant has not been issued by HUD since 2003. Clearly, despite what the opponents of this legislation may claim, HUD has not covertly abused this power to tear down public housing units without reason and, I would suggest to you, without being asked to participate.

However, sometimes public housing authorities have already put together their own financing to redevelop housing, but they lack the funds to tear down the existing distressed facility. In instances like these, common sense dictates that a demolition-only grant under HOPE VI would be appropriate, once again, working with the existing local authority to make sure that what they want is accomplished.

As an added bonus, a cleared site also attracts more Federal and private resources for revitalization efforts, meaning that when local people ask for the support, then it can and would presumably be granted, making the site better.

Another instance in which demolition-only grants make sense is when a severely distressed public housing site is simply not a viable candidate for redevelopment, either because it is only partially occupied or completely vacant, once again, working directly with the local housing authority. In these cases, other forms of housing assistance, like section 8 vouchers, may be more beneficial to community members simply than reconstructing a new building, in particular on the same site, once again, at the discretion of local housing authorities.

The question that every Member should be asking themselves before they vote to eliminate this authority is, if there is no demand for public housing in a certain area, as evidenced by its partially or completely vacant status, and if the local housing authority is seeking this help, then why on Earth would Congress mandate that HUD create an unwanted supply? It makes no logical or fiscal sense to inefficiently direct these taxpayer dollars where there is no reason or demand to build. Prohibiting demolition-only grants almost guarantees this type of waste would occur.

Additionally and finally, Mr. Chairman, let's not forget that the ultimate goal of this program is to empower people to eventually get off public housing and become self-determined, not simply to create more public housing units. I would submit in the greater scheme of things, it is also to have the Federal Government, through HUD, have the flexibility to work carefully and closely with local housing authorities to make sure that the right thing happens.

By preventing HUD from having the authority to remove dilapidated housing without also rebuilding new units as Congress, we are certainly failing to live up to the spirit of this philosophy. I encourage all of my colleagues to support what I think is a commonsense amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source