We feel that this is a disservice to the boards, and seriously weakens their ability to reflect tenant interests in their deliberations and decisions. We would recommend that the phrase that it is the sense of Congress that no tenant should be barred from serving on the board of a public housing agency should be changed into a simple statement that no tenant shall be barred from serving, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, our approach to this testimony has been primarily as victims of the housing crisis, not as those who stand to profit as builders, bankers, real estate brokers, social workers and others, from one or another particular solution to that crisis. Our needs are real and they are simple. In the words of the Housing Act of 1949, they are decent homes and a suitable living environment. We call upon this committee to approach potential legislation from the perspective of the consumer and take the housing goals seriously. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you for a fine statement. We do appreciate it. You have done an excellent job of presenting your viewpoint. We have no questons for you. We appreciate it. [Complete statement of Mr. Henry follows:] NATIONAL TENANTS ORGANIZATION, INC. 425 THIRTEENTH STREET, N.W, SUITE 548, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202)347-3358 Chairman Sparkman, members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Anthony Henry. I am Director of the National Tenants Information Service and am speaking this morning on behalf of National Tenants Organization. councils across this nation, many of them in subsidized housing. In light of the President's proposed bill, I can only say that it will serve to function as genocide for the very people it purports it will assist. Contrary to commitments to aid the poor, it has merely continued the moratorium by suggesting an additional study by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development requiring an additional 18 months for study in preparation for an already existing pilot program on the cash assistance program. This moratorium has continued on everything but Section 23 pertaining to leasing. The proposal purports to continue experimenting with housing assistance, again, something which has been in progress for 3 years. There is a further restriction of the proposal that being requirement of community approval for Section 23. That which the Administration will allow to survive in the form of existing housing programs proposes alterations which would further exclude the poor from the benefits of such programs. It can be inferred that the President's proposal to halt construction of new family public housing will also be the elimination of all public housing programs. This would also, in fact, continue "to produce a concentration of families living in subsidized housing and to deprive them of the enjoyment of the benefits of federal housing " While public houing has had many problems in the past, public housing was dealing with problems such as: new form of public housing-- which included scattered sites, rehabilitation, leasing, and potential homeownership, which provides the means for transforming the public housing programs into a more responsive one. Passage of legislation limiting rents to 25% of income was a step toward enabling public housing to serve poor people, as was the accompanying provision of operating subsidy. Inclusion of tenants on the boards of housing authorities unheard of until the late 1960's, has resulted in more responsive development and management policies. Public housing is only a failure when compared to middle-income housing. Yet when compared to what the poor can obtain in private housing at a similar cost, it is enormously successful. The public housing program is the oldest and most successful housing program for low-income and poor people. And local housing authorities have had valuable experience in meeting the needs of the people. It must not now be legislated away or killed. The President proposes that we continue the present national experiment in housing allowances and commits himself to implementing such a program in a couple of years on a limited basis. While a valuable experiment, we are concerned about the President's premature commitment to implement such a program especially since it appears that the Adminstration wishes to use the housing allowance as a means of abandoning its responsibility to serve and protect the interest of the low-income and poor people. The proposal would abandon. the protection by and through the lease for tenants achieved under the public housing Lease and Grievance Procedure. It is apparent that the proposal does not yet understand that the best way to protect consumers is to give them the tools and power to protect themselves. The housing assistance program would, in fact, leave the individual with no choice as he has no choice in the matter of legislation presented here before us. His "movement", would become so stagnant that problems that no longer existed would again appear. The proposal would abandon social services such as: family counselling, drug referrals, and health related services. Further, it is rather ironic that the Administration proposes to begin the housing assistance program with those for whom the program has been least helpful, the elderly. The existing public housing program for the elderly has been the most successful of all the housing programs. The housing assistance program would not meet the special needs of the elderly for special and more protective construction and services. Further, if the housing assistance experiment should continue, it should be with a broadening of the responsibilities of the government to the people. Further, that should another experiment in the form of a study be necessitated that such study should be paid for not out of proposed or existing monies for housing. |