The resolution before the council is to authorize the Planning Board to conduct an investigation of the block, hold a public hearing on the findings and make a recommendation to the governing body. The process calls for the council then to review the recommendation, make a final determination and then possibly adopt a resolution directing the Planning Board to prepare a redevelopment/rehabilitation plan.
But at the June 14 meeting, council members were more interested in asking Housing Authority Director Randall Wood what would happen if the plan was in place, especially how current residents would be affected. A redevelopment designation would permit a developer to apply for a tax credit program from the New Jersey Mortgage and Finance Agency to finance the redevelopment, which would include removal the existing 128 housing units and construction of 72 new units.
Councilman William Reid, a retired Housing Authority director in other municipalities, and Councilwoman Bridget Rivers, who said she once lived in public housing, expressed concern about the projected decrease in the number of units. Reid said a relocation plan had to be in place for the tenants.
Asked by Councilman Cory Storch when relocation might be anticipated, Wood said October of this year. Storch, the council’s Planning Board representative, raised other questions about the timetable and also asked whether residents could move back in to the new buildings. Wood said they would have to reapply and there was no guarantee that the Housing Authority would be the manager.
Rivers questioned housing vouchers that certain displaced tenants would receive, saying they were not easy to use. The vouchers guarantee payment of a large portion of the rent, but the tenant has to find the housing. Wood said about a quarter of the current tenants would not receive vouchers, as they are out of compliance with housing rules. But he said, “No one will be without a home.”
Wood said there were currently 13 vacancies and about two dozen evictions in the works for non-payment of rent or infractions of Housing Authority rules. But he said he had over 150 landlords “begging for families.”
Reid and Rivers also wanted to link a proposed city camera surveillance system to one operated by the Housing Authority, although such a linkage had nothing to do with the redevelopment issue.
Wood referred to the Elmwood Gardens complex as an “albatross” to the authority, which owns several public housing complexes and manages others. In a July 2008 council meeting, Housing Authority Lewis Hurd used the same term to describe the troubled site, which has been a hot spot for crime for decades. Residents blame the illegal activity on outsiders who take advantage of the Elmwood Gardens configuration, which affords lawbreakers various ways to elude police. Concerns about Elmwood Gardens date back decades and include a former mayor’s proposal to raze the complex and rebuild it differently as the only way to stop crime there.
--Bernice
It's interesting to me how this article states that residents blame outsiders for the illegal activity at the complex. This is typical, God forbid any of these folks would actually take any accountability for their own; everything is always everyone else's problem. Jeez!
ReplyDeleteAll the residents that are chronically late with rent, chronic violators of the rules of regulations of the complex, etc. should be given housing vouchers and shipped off to another community. Let someone else deal with these people. Plainfield has enough deadbeats all around; a few less of these type of people would offer the city financial relief and help our community move in the right direction.
This a project whose time has come. They bulldozed the projects in New Brunswick and built nice new housing for residents to live in. We can do the same thing here. Make a nice new community where people can live in safe, modern housing. Those who qualify and play by the rules will have a nice place to live. Those that don't, can go elsewhere. Affordable housing is a privilege, not a right.
ReplyDeletes I understand it, public housing was intended to provide a place for people in need, with the goal of self-sufficiency as soon as possible. The intention itself is good and those who are using this opportunity in good faith as a leg up should not be stigmatized.
ReplyDeleteThe project referred to in New Brunswick was Memorial Homes, one of those tall apartment buildings which have proven difficult for public housing. In addition, Memorial Homes was on prime river-front real estate. New Brunswick created low-rise scatter-site housing as a replacement. I believe Elmwood Gardens is low-rise. I'm interested in the idea advanced by anonymous at 10:38 that residents should have "safe, modern housing." My house was built 80 years ago. I would like "modern housing" if that meant "energy-efficient" with a new kitchen and so on, but no one's offering that to me, and when I pay for such improvements, my taxes go up.
ReplyDeleteBernice,
ReplyDeleteYour points are very accurate. The intention was to provide a stepping stone towards independence as well as a helping hand for seniors and the disabled. Instead, it has become a way of life for far too many. The system is broken to the point of no repair. And the abuses are out of control. When a resident has section 8 and is renting an apartment for $1300/mo. Sect 8 covers $1200/mo, she is responsible for $100 and doesnt pay her share, yet she is driving a brand new $130K Mercedes. You report the fraud and it is ignored. Meanwhile, Jane or John Doe who do qualify cant get it because there are no vouchers available.
The words I kept hearing were "those who qualify". That means to mean that there are people who are living off the dole and do not qualify to be living where they are. Raze the building, get them out, and let honest, decent people live in Plainfield.
ReplyDelete