Author Archives: Joseph Kelly

Letter from Mr. Acosta

[Students, here is a letter Mr. Acosta sent to me after reading your on-line posts about the Charleston Arms Apartments.  He has most graciously given me permission to post it here.  Please read through this rather than what’s on the syllabus for Monday–it’s most pertinent of the issues of public policy and population migrations we’ve been discussing.]

Dear Prof. Kelly,

I’m Reynaldo Acosta and I am the harbinger of the August 15 Post and Courier article concerning my plight with Charleston Arms Apartments.  Another article was subsequently printed on August 26, 2015, following an August 21 meeting with the president of Trademark Properties which was followed by a newscast on WCBD, Channel 2, and WCIV, Channel 4.

This e-mail will detail certain aspects of my situation, its status, and an overall summary of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, formerly known as Section 8, to which I will refer as HCVP.

 I.     Summary of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, or HCVP, formerly known as Section 8, is a federally funded program in which the Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, pays their portion of the rent on behalf of the tenant to the Landlord.  The program is administered through local, county, regional, or state Public Housing Authorities, or PHA’s.  It is HUD’s position that not more than a third of a participant’s income is used to pay their rent and basic utilities.  For the disabled or elderly, medical expenses of over 3% of the gross annual income are deducted as are the amount of $400 from their annual income.  For each child, regardless of disability, the amount deducted is $475 per year.  Additionally, since basic utilities are within the figure, a utility allowance is deducted from the total tenant payment (TTP) of up to 30% per month.  So the average tenant will pay about one-fifth of their income to the landlord.  Tenants with extraordinary medical expenses pay much less or nothing.  In fact there are many cases in which tenants, especially single mothers of multiple children, actually receive a check from the Housing Authority that is payable to them and their utility company.

As you know, getting a Housing Choice Voucher is very difficult.  Originally I’m from Florida and have lived there all my life.  Back in 2005 South Carolina Regional Housing Authority, which covers seven counties, was giving out vouchers like hotcakes.  I placed my name on their waiting list inter alia.  I didn’t have to wait: I received notification of availability immediately, whereupon I acted.  I rented a car, drove it up here to South Carolina, and got the voucher.  I moved to Lugoff (35 NE of Columbia) in November, 2005 and lived there for two months-shy of five years.  I then ported my voucher here to Charleston and have been living here since September, 2009.

As was the case in 2005 and way before, Housing Authorities are overwhelmed by their waiting lists and those who need affordable housing.  If you are lucky enough to get on a waiting list—and you have to watch closely for openings—expect a waiting time in excess of five years before you receive notice of availability.  And you must let your PHA know in writing any changes to your address so they don’t purge you from the list.  If you were not living in the county or jurisdiction of the PHA at the time you signed up then you must live there for at least a year before you can port the voucher to another jurisdiction.  Many PHA’s are short-funded and may not allow their participants to port, unless the receiving PHA is willing to absorb the costs, otherwise the initial PHA has to pay all costs to the receiving PHA.

As you are aware, landlords in this and most states have the right to decide whether they will take a voucher, and most upscale – or “slumlords—will not take them for various reasons.  In 14 states landlords are required to take them.  Many landlords have received their mortgages for their properties through federal subsidy: the most common being a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit mortages, or LIHTC’s.  In exchange for their low-interest loans, these property owners agree to provide units for those on low incomes at a rent commensurate with the HUD-published fair market rents, or FMR’s.  These landlords must take vouchers.  The problem: there are very few in the Charleston area.  The apartment I live in is a conventional apartment complex.  It should be noted that landlords cannot charge any monthly “side” payments.  The Housing Authority dictates to the tenant how much they pay the landlord.  Late fees and payments for damages are excluded from this rule.

It was the intent of the HCVP for low-income tenants to blend in with more affluent tenants.  But in reality this is not the case.  As conventional properties are being renovated and their rent escalated (gentrified), the low-income group is getting more separated and steered into areas of high crime.  Additionally HCVP participants have had a stigma of notoriety for certain types of behavior, such as damaging property or causing disturbances to other tenants.  However, those on the HCVP have even higher standards to live by if they want to protect their voucher, because if these tenants are taken to court (evicted) and the landlord wins, the tenant loses their voucher for at least three years (plus the time it takes to get on a new waiting list).  In my experience with the program, single mothers with children are the most notable abusers of the system.  They often let friends or “other half” non-spouses to move in regardless of criminal history, which PHA’s and apartment complexes filter out by their screening processes.  And their children often misbehave and cause problems for other tenants.  Disabled and elderly tenants tend to protect their vouchers by abiding by the rules, however there are a few with alcohol or drug issues which cause a threat to the property and tenants.

II.        My situation

As you know, my apartment complex, Charleston Arms, and its sister complex, Georgetown, located just a couple of blocks away, both once owned by Asset Management and Consulting Services, or AMCS, was purchased by Latitude Properties, LLC, in Beverly Hills, CA, and it management was assumed by Trademark Properties from Raliegh, NC.  I was assured by the President of Trademark that all “section 8 tenants’ leases would be renewed.”  In the middle of the month of July, the same person discussed options for my lease renewal.  But on the last day of July, I received a letter stating that this was my formal 30-day notice that my lease was not going to be renewed.  That is when I called HUD, which generated a complaint that was forwarded to the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, and caught the attention of State Representative Wendell Gilliard (D), who contacted me and arranged for a meeting.  The investigator from SCHAC drove from Columbia with a coworker to the North Charleston City Hall as did News Channels 2 and 4 and David Slade from the Post and Courier.  They televised me that evening in all newscasts that evening and left a video newscast online.

Subsequent to this, the apartment complex agreed to provide me some more time to locate a place to live that is compatible with my mobility limitations, and about 50 families more time to get new housing.  They have until May 31, 2016 to find a new home.  I have some confidential provisions specific to me.

III.        Reflections

As mentioned in the newscast of which I provided a link above, this matter hit me like a ton of bricks—I was confronted with the real probability that I would end up being homeless, a situation I never experienced before.  In survival mode, I accessed as many resources I could to get help in this critical matter.  I’m grateful that I was able to get the help and the provisions I received.

However, my situation is not over by far: I still need to move and there are very few (in my case thus far no) options available for those on HCVP, including veterans on the Vetarans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program, administered jointly by the VA and PHA’s.  With all the gentrification going on in Charleston, we are left with very few options.  At this time it appears that only LIHTC’s (see above) accept vouchers, and every one of them have long waiting lists.  My name has been moved to the top of the waiting list of an apartment near me, which has total wheelchair accessibility.

IV.          Conclusion

I hope the foregoing was informative (maybe TMI?) in giving insight to the problem facing those who are disabled like me and on low income.  Once again, I can’t tell you enough how appreciative I am in reading those comments you have made on your Professor’s Blog.  Should any of you need to contact me, please feel free to do so.

Sincerely,

Reynaldo Acosta

Reynaldo Acosta

Students,  I want to call your attention to a comment posted on the “Charleston Arms” thread.  Reynaldo Acosto, the man who is featured in the Post and Courier article on the closing of the Charleston Arms apartment, saw your blogs, called me up, and wanted to get in touch.  Please take a look at his comment on that blog thread.

Longborough

The reading for Wednesday is a bit long, but it’s quick because it’s a series of newspaper articles.  Twelve years covering the history of the Longborough neighborhood.  Read that history.  Look at the assignment for paper 2.  Decide what side of the issue you’re on.  Imagine the best argument AGAINST your opinion, and refute it in a full ¶.  Cut and paste that ¶ into a reply to this post.

Charleston Arms

Who are the interest groups involved in the Charleston Arms issue?  How is government involved?  What do you think about this change in land use?

Again a change

It was pointed out to me that I’ve changed the due date for Paper 2 to the day after Parent Weekend.  Therefore, I’ve pushed it back yet again, to the following Friday.

Blog about Social Explorer

Go to Social Explorer (the link is on the right side of this page).  Play around with the site, comparing Charleston in the 2000 census to Charleston in the 1990 census and the 1980 census.  Look at difference demographic factors, such as race or income or age.  What do changes do you find?  Can you speculate about what public policies might (at least partially) account for such changes?

Homework

In addition to playing around with the racial map of US website, I want you to construct a paragraph that fully develops the argument Wilson made in the Post & Courier:

Major Premise:

Because all human beings need solace.

Minor Premises:

Because technology disturbs our solace; and

Because nature restores our solace

Therefore:

We need to spend more time in nature.

Your audience is the typical city-dweller in contemporary society.  Determine if any of these premises need their own support, and, if so, construct an argument that will persuade your readers to agree with that premise.  Maybe you need to spend a little time defining what we mean by “solace.”  Then roll it all up in one big package (that is, paragraph) that has “We need to spend more time in nature” as its main point.  Cut and past the ¶ as a reply to this post.

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Monday’s reading is from the text book.  Select an argument you find in King’s essay–either inductive or deductive–and analyze it.  Remember, that means to break it down into parts.  If it’s an inductive argument, you should find a conclusion and evidence.  If it’s a deductive argument, you should find premises–major and minor premises–and a conclusion.

New London v. Kelo, et al.

If you were on the Supreme Court, would you have decided this case in favor of the City of New London, or in favor Kelo and the other petitioners?

Comprehensive Land Use Plan

The reading for Monday is too large a .pdf to load on our website, so you need to go to OAKS to find it.  Open “Content,” and you should see a module called “Readings.” It will be the only file in there.  Read the whole document, but don’t get bogged down in the details.  Post a response to either this prompt or to someone else’s response:  WHAT IS THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, AND DO YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT?