Dublin Core
Title
Box 18, Folder 27, Document 17
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
HOUSING RESOURCES COMMITTEE Me
i Topics for discussion with the Mayor Ww
ay May 8, 1967
.l. Sunmery of April 20, Housing Resources Committee report shows:
Estimate when available
Category No. Units 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Firm 3556 (1312) (1928) (316) - ~
Probable 3553 - * (1681) (672) (500) ~— (700)
Total 7109 In Sight (1312) (3609) (988) (500) (700)
Being Considered S69
Doubtful 3056 ,
Total Proposed 1,766 units
Of the 71 proposals contained in this report, 19 of the best ones
and those which until recently were considered among the most promising
( = . sre (0 cn) = ) . = a =< 5 dow - . ee |
comprising 6,504 units) have either been turned down or are in jeopardy.
The princival reasons for this, together with some suggestions to improve
the situation,were included in letter of April 12, to the Chairman of the
Housing Resources Committee. The problem areas of greatest concern are
indicated in the accompaning list.
2. Effects of the problem encountered with the NAACP and the Inter-group
Relations Section of HUD is beginning to be felt locally in FHA also.
lt is apparent that the position taken by the Inter-group Relations Section
of HUD hes been brewing for some time and now has the svoport of HUD in
Washington. Thus far we have depended primarily on private developers to
come in with proposed sites. Unless the current situation can be materially
improved soon, it may behoove the City to go into the business of systemically
determining sites for low cost housing and acquiring the land needed for sucn
use, by condemnation if necessary, in much the same manner as is done by the
School Board for needed school sites,
36 f the 9800 unit goal for the first two years of the low cost housing
program, allocation breakdown specified by the Mayor in the Housing Conference
are as follows:
i
Public Housing 57% = 5586 units (56,0 allocated) (\v
Pri vate 302 = 290 units \9
nventional) X
221d(3) Non-profit 134 = 127) units Gi
Total 9800 a
hg
aH
ta
c
@
a]
4 (Dp
a
@
h
Qo
G
o
Kh
uw
Zt seems that the 221d(3), co-op is the most popular approach to the non-
fit development and is best for both the City and the purchaser-occupant.
he prospective home owner gets more for his money in this type of home
/
K / wnership than in any other manner thus far proposed. The failure and
t
®oreclosing rate nationally on these developments is negligible. This
\ ype development should be able to account for a greater proportionate
+
share of the overall requirement than the 13% previously indicated; it
5
should be widely encouraged.
k. An article by Alex Coffin in the Atlanta Constitution, April 17,
stated that 25% of Atlanta is in vacant lots. If this be true, our most
\o available resource for low-cost housing, both public and private, is on
\ Yi scattered sites. Incidentally such procedure would create a minimum of
neighborhood objection and political difficulty. Both private developers
and the Housing Authority should be called upon to pursue this principle
to the maximum.
r
5. The Housing Code inspections on Boulevard have produced offers for Y yh
‘ Y/ sale by owners of at least 103 units. '
e
6, No additional sites under the Public Housing leasing program have been
acquired since previous Housing Resources Committee report of February 20.
cars thet most of the time of the Housing Authority reoresentative
ct
Ir
a
ao
‘Oo
oO
4
0
é
“ aSSigned to leasing is taken up in processing individual tenant leases for
x
ccucancy of the leased units rather than devoting the main effort to
o
ecuring
Ls)
=
eases for additional units, The leasing of additional projects
oO
for Public Housing should be pushed.
7. Although rehabilitation of sub-standard dwelling units does not pro-
vide additional housing (and such is not included in Housing Resources
Comittee tabulation totals of prospective housing units), still this
feature adds materially to the available resources of standard housing
and tends to reduce the requirement for new housing. Consequently it
is desirable for the Housing Resources Committee to have current infor-
mation on the extent of rehabilitation and principal areas involved.
This information is contained in routine monthly reports of activities
of the Housing Code Division and has been requested several times, but
has not been received since January and only partial information was
provided for December and Januery. There appears to be no logical reason
why copies of the Housing Code Division's monthly reports should not be
made available to the Housing Resources Committee.
8, Although some of the difficulties confronting the low-cost housing
program may be beyond the ability of the City, however the outcome of
zoning petition number Z-67-33G (denial of rezoning from M-1 to A-1)
is typical of situations’ over which the City does have control and where
rezoning may have to be accomplished in order to provide ample locations
for development of low-cost housing.
9, There are still 157 single family lots in the Thomasville Urban
Renewal Project which have not been sold for 221 development. Minimum
prices have been established on all of these lots, ranging from $900 %o
©2100 each. in order to encourage development of these lots, recommend
that price reductions be made for multiple purchases, as shown on the
pttached card and that publicity be given to that effect. Mr. Gates,
ltant, concurs with this principle. The suggested reduction
oO
cs
Hy
bea
xi
to
oO
oO
BD
i)
S
has been shown to a reputable and experienced developer who agrees that
it is practical and should result in development of these lots.
10, In order to keep the interest and confidence of prospective developers
in the low-cost housing field, suggest that a conference be called by the
Mayor with the Board of Aldermen and that some of the most interested low-
cost housing promoters and developers be invited to present their views
and comments on the program. Several have indicated that they would welcome
such an opportunity. Such meeting might produce some helpful ideas. In
any event it would provide an opportunity for them to state their side of
the problem and should serve to clear the currently confused atmosphere.
Also suggest that the Press be invited to such a meeting.
oS
Encls: Suggested price reductions on Thomasville lots
A
Memo dated April 21, 1967
=
VAN
i Topics for discussion with the Mayor Ww
ay May 8, 1967
.l. Sunmery of April 20, Housing Resources Committee report shows:
Estimate when available
Category No. Units 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Firm 3556 (1312) (1928) (316) - ~
Probable 3553 - * (1681) (672) (500) ~— (700)
Total 7109 In Sight (1312) (3609) (988) (500) (700)
Being Considered S69
Doubtful 3056 ,
Total Proposed 1,766 units
Of the 71 proposals contained in this report, 19 of the best ones
and those which until recently were considered among the most promising
( = . sre (0 cn) = ) . = a =< 5 dow - . ee |
comprising 6,504 units) have either been turned down or are in jeopardy.
The princival reasons for this, together with some suggestions to improve
the situation,were included in letter of April 12, to the Chairman of the
Housing Resources Committee. The problem areas of greatest concern are
indicated in the accompaning list.
2. Effects of the problem encountered with the NAACP and the Inter-group
Relations Section of HUD is beginning to be felt locally in FHA also.
lt is apparent that the position taken by the Inter-group Relations Section
of HUD hes been brewing for some time and now has the svoport of HUD in
Washington. Thus far we have depended primarily on private developers to
come in with proposed sites. Unless the current situation can be materially
improved soon, it may behoove the City to go into the business of systemically
determining sites for low cost housing and acquiring the land needed for sucn
use, by condemnation if necessary, in much the same manner as is done by the
School Board for needed school sites,
36 f the 9800 unit goal for the first two years of the low cost housing
program, allocation breakdown specified by the Mayor in the Housing Conference
are as follows:
i
Public Housing 57% = 5586 units (56,0 allocated) (\v
Pri vate 302 = 290 units \9
nventional) X
221d(3) Non-profit 134 = 127) units Gi
Total 9800 a
hg
aH
ta
c
@
a]
4 (Dp
a
@
h
Qo
G
o
Kh
uw
Zt seems that the 221d(3), co-op is the most popular approach to the non-
fit development and is best for both the City and the purchaser-occupant.
he prospective home owner gets more for his money in this type of home
/
K / wnership than in any other manner thus far proposed. The failure and
t
®oreclosing rate nationally on these developments is negligible. This
\ ype development should be able to account for a greater proportionate
+
share of the overall requirement than the 13% previously indicated; it
5
should be widely encouraged.
k. An article by Alex Coffin in the Atlanta Constitution, April 17,
stated that 25% of Atlanta is in vacant lots. If this be true, our most
\o available resource for low-cost housing, both public and private, is on
\ Yi scattered sites. Incidentally such procedure would create a minimum of
neighborhood objection and political difficulty. Both private developers
and the Housing Authority should be called upon to pursue this principle
to the maximum.
r
5. The Housing Code inspections on Boulevard have produced offers for Y yh
‘ Y/ sale by owners of at least 103 units. '
e
6, No additional sites under the Public Housing leasing program have been
acquired since previous Housing Resources Committee report of February 20.
cars thet most of the time of the Housing Authority reoresentative
ct
Ir
a
ao
‘Oo
oO
4
0
é
“ aSSigned to leasing is taken up in processing individual tenant leases for
x
ccucancy of the leased units rather than devoting the main effort to
o
ecuring
Ls)
=
eases for additional units, The leasing of additional projects
oO
for Public Housing should be pushed.
7. Although rehabilitation of sub-standard dwelling units does not pro-
vide additional housing (and such is not included in Housing Resources
Comittee tabulation totals of prospective housing units), still this
feature adds materially to the available resources of standard housing
and tends to reduce the requirement for new housing. Consequently it
is desirable for the Housing Resources Committee to have current infor-
mation on the extent of rehabilitation and principal areas involved.
This information is contained in routine monthly reports of activities
of the Housing Code Division and has been requested several times, but
has not been received since January and only partial information was
provided for December and Januery. There appears to be no logical reason
why copies of the Housing Code Division's monthly reports should not be
made available to the Housing Resources Committee.
8, Although some of the difficulties confronting the low-cost housing
program may be beyond the ability of the City, however the outcome of
zoning petition number Z-67-33G (denial of rezoning from M-1 to A-1)
is typical of situations’ over which the City does have control and where
rezoning may have to be accomplished in order to provide ample locations
for development of low-cost housing.
9, There are still 157 single family lots in the Thomasville Urban
Renewal Project which have not been sold for 221 development. Minimum
prices have been established on all of these lots, ranging from $900 %o
©2100 each. in order to encourage development of these lots, recommend
that price reductions be made for multiple purchases, as shown on the
pttached card and that publicity be given to that effect. Mr. Gates,
ltant, concurs with this principle. The suggested reduction
oO
cs
Hy
bea
xi
to
oO
oO
BD
i)
S
has been shown to a reputable and experienced developer who agrees that
it is practical and should result in development of these lots.
10, In order to keep the interest and confidence of prospective developers
in the low-cost housing field, suggest that a conference be called by the
Mayor with the Board of Aldermen and that some of the most interested low-
cost housing promoters and developers be invited to present their views
and comments on the program. Several have indicated that they would welcome
such an opportunity. Such meeting might produce some helpful ideas. In
any event it would provide an opportunity for them to state their side of
the problem and should serve to clear the currently confused atmosphere.
Also suggest that the Press be invited to such a meeting.
oS
Encls: Suggested price reductions on Thomasville lots
A
Memo dated April 21, 1967
=
VAN
Comments