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
Ms. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Today's HOPE VI program is the direct result of the 1992 report submitted to Congress by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing that said approximately 6 percent of the 1.4 million existing public housing apartments were severely distressed and recommended that they be removed from the housing stock.
Since Congress began appropriating funds for HOPE VI in 1992, the program has been revitalizing and replacing some of the most dangerous and dilapidated public housing units in the country with mixed-income communities. These grants play a vital role in a community's redevelopment and have changed the physical characteristics of public housing from high-rise tenements to attractive, marketable units that blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and help residents attain self-sufficiency.
[Page:
H303]
While the goals of the program are to be commended, and HOPE VI projects remain popular with many Members of Congress, it is not without faults. The HOPE VI program has been criticized by the administration, which argues that grantees spend their money too slowly, and by tenant advocates, who claim the program displaces more families than it houses in new developments. Also, there are those who argue that HOPE VI is not an efficient method for meeting the current and future capital needs of public housing programs.
The bill we are considering today, H.R. 3524, makes several significant changes to the underlying program. I want to commend Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and Congressman Shays for their bipartisan work on this bill. I know that Congressman Shays has worked hard to address some of the concerns raised by HUD and by those on this side of the aisle regarding the bill. Certainly, the manager's amendment moves in the right direction. However, there are still several areas of disagreement on this legislation, such as the elimination of demolition-only grants, implementing one-for-one replacement requirements, and mandating HOPE VI developers comply with the Green Communities Green Building Rating System.
The HOPE VI program has been a program that has worked. Through public-private partnerships, we have changed the physical shape of public housing by establishing positive incentives for resident self-sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower residents. We must take care not to make this program so prescriptive that developers and nonprofits find the program too difficult in which to participate.
Several years ago, I spoke at the opening ceremonies at Orchard Manor in Charleston, West Virginia. Orchard Manor is now a beautiful complex of townhouses, duplexes and apartments that began its transformation from a rundown public housing project with the removal of 230 out of the existing 360 units under a HUD HOPE VI demolition-only grant. Following the initial demolition, additional units were constructed using replacement housing funds until the complex reached its present state. Orchard Manor is a shining example of the importance and significance of using demolition-only grants as part of HOPE VI. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has an amendment that will reinstate HUD's ability to fund demolition-only grants, and I urge its adoption so future successful projects, such as Orchard Manor, can receive that funding.
Finally, I plan to offer an amendment that I believe is a commonsense approach to green building requirements outlined in this legislation. I am concerned that Congress is attempting to mandate this program. Building green is a good thing. Mandating how to do it by a private building standard, I believe there are other ways to do it, which is essentially the heart of my amendment.
Specifically, the green building requirements in the bill could lead to fewer affordable housing units being built. My amendment still requires minimum green building standards, but it directs the Secretary to select an appropriate green building rating system standard or code that addresses environmental soundness but leaves that flexibility for the Secretary to determine other criteria as appropriate.
We are currently experiencing rapid development in our definition of what constitutes a legitimate ``green building standard'' through the competition of differing ideas. This competition is a healthy one, and we should not cut short through a hasty endorsement of one of the competing proprietary standards as our definition.
In closing, the HOPE VI program is not a cure-all for the rehabilitation and capital improvement needs of public housing units. However, this House has the opportunity with this bill, through several amendments, to further develop a program that rehabilitates our public housing into affordable, mixed-income communities.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank the chairman and the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Ms. Waters, for reaching across the aisle and working on some of the very serious concerns that we had about the original bill.
I would like to speak specifically about one area, the one-for-one replacement. We have heard a lot of discussion about that on the floor in the beginning arguments. But in this manager's amendment, there is much more flexibility in the one-for-one replacement. It also allows the Secretary to have some flexibility, and I think that means we will have more meaningful housing, housing with more vision on how to improve family and home life.
Another thing is the development timeline. In the original bill, the development timeline was 12 months. I can't imagine myself trying to build large projects such as these and have everything in 12 months. So that deadline was extended to 54 months, which I think was a very good move.
Also on the green building requirements, I have an amendment coming forward to ask for flexibility again in the green building requirements. But in the manager's amendment, some revisions were made, and I think it's moving us a step in the right direction.
I myself support the manager's amendment. I think that a lot of the changes that were made were made in response to what we were hearing in our various offices from not only individuals but various groups their concern for the best way to put forward affordable housing, HOPE VI, and make sure that what we build stands up to the challenges of the future.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the HOPE VI bill, and I would like to talk about first of all what this amendment does not do because my fear is the argument on the other side is going to distort what I really think the core of the discussion between my amendment and those opposed should be.
This amendment in no way is an advocate for destroying or throwing out the window environmental or green building standards. That is not my goal or my intention with this amendment. It retains requirements for green building standards, but it looks at how we build green in a different way.
In the bill presently, there is a mandatory building standard that has been a criteria that has been developed by a proprietary preference for one organization. My amendment would simply move this out of a mandated into the green communities specifically mandated criteria, and move it into a more flexible situation where the Secretary would then choose an appropriate green building standard, green building rating system and code that would address environmental considerations, and leaves flexibility for the Secretary, this Secretary and secretaries to follow, to be able to determine that criteria.
We are going to be building these HOPE VI projects all across this Nation, and I think it is important to note that there should be some geographic considerations for green building standards across the country.
We are also trying to find the best way to use our Federal dollars, to maximize the number of Federal housing units, while still adhering to good environmental standards.
I have listened a lot over the last 60 years to housing projects that have been made, destroyed and rebuilt and why some of them haven't lasted as long as they should. I think by putting this amendment forward, I think I am taking into consideration that what we know today to be a good green building standard and to be in the best interest of an environment or a community or a quality of life in 3 years may be outdated. The technology may not be in front of us now that says if you look at your water this way or your air this way or your environmental considerations for the landscaping, that there is going to be a better way in 3 years.
In this bill, I think we are locking down a certain proprietarily developed standard for green building. I think in selecting appropriate green building criteria, this gives HUD the ability to choose a green building system, a standard or code, in an open, consensus-based way. That is why I put forward this amendment to give HUD the flexibility not only for today but for the future.
Again, I want to reiterate what this amendment does not do. It does not have a goal in mind of undercutting green building in an environmentally stable way to create new HOPE VI projects. Also in this amendment, it also requires the Secretary to conduct a review once every 5 years to determine if the chosen system and standard or code is still relevant, and I think that is appropriate in terms of innovation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source