State-funded public housing: truce?
We’re both a bit shot up
Because most litigation ends in settlement, in many cases the real purpose of filing suit is to force a change in the other fellow’s perceptions. Something like this occurred — more or less — in
Three of the largest public housing authorities in Massachusetts, citing a pledge by Governor Deval Patrick to adequately fund public housing, said yesterday they have dropped a lawsuit that accused the Romney administration of shortchanging the state’s nearly 250 local authorities by millions of dollars.
The biggest change, in other words, was from the governor they sued to the governor with whom they settled.
Although only three authorities filed suit, the complaint had sought help for authorities across the state.
Misery does love company.
Still, even if the three authorities that went the effort, publicity, and risk of suing the state wanted to make peace, they could have done so by suspending the litigation — placing is in abeyance — but they have apparently withdrawn their complaint entirely:
We can always take it back down later
The authorities in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline signed an agreement with lawyers for the state to shelve the suit after the new administration proposed to increase operating money from $45 million to $60 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and to provide other funds, Stephen Young, a lawyer for the three authorities, told the Globe.
A one-third boost is material by anybody’s standards. So that’s certainly good. Was it the right amount? Did the authorities get as much as they reasonably could:
Young said Governor Mitt Romney was indifferent to financial woes that the authorities said forced residents to live in deteriorating, even squalid, conditions and prompted the closing of hundreds of substandard apartments. The new administration, Young said, seems committed to improving conditions in the nearly 50,000 public housing apartments statewide for poor, elderly, and disabled residents.
“I think it’s fair to say that with the Patrick administration coming into office, the attitude toward dealing with the outrageous condition in public housing changed immediately,” said Young, whose clients filed the suit in November in Suffolk Superior Court.
I’m ready to change my attitude!
Too bad, the legal principle is important. As I posted, housing authorities should have the legitimacy of their moral claim validated.
The housing authorities in
Some state-funded public housing is in a deplorable condition, in part because public housing’s dependency-oriented funding schema cripples the properties, and therefore expects government will always fund the resulting shortfall:
That system means that the larger-body funder (here, the state) has a moral duty to cover the operating deficits. As the plaintiffs in BHA v. Massachusetts state in their complaint (numbers reference paragraph numbers in the complaint):
17. Recognizing this reality, the Massachusetts Legislature has mandated in Section 32 that “any deficiency in the budget of a housing authority caused by such reduced rental shall be paid by the Commonwealth to the local housing authority in an amount equal to the difference between the tenant’s rent and the prorated costs of operating that unit.” (Emphasis supplied.)
18. Section 32 also establishes that the revenues collected by the housing authorities, coupled with the subsidy just described, “will be sufficient” to allow the housing authorities to (1) pay the principal and interest on their bonds; (2) meet the costs of insurance; (3) provide for the maintenance, operation and use of their affordable housing projects; (4) satisfy administrative expenses; (5) create reserves designed to satisfy bond payments; and (6) provide tenant services. (Emphasis supplied.)
19. These statutory provisions establish that the Commonwealth has an explicit obligation to make up the shortfall between rents paid by tenants and the amount actually needed to operate public housing. Without this assistance, the housing authorities cannot meet their own statutory obligation to furnish decent, safe and sanitary housing to low-income residents of
I can certainly understand why the authorities might be willing to settle —- at least by a dismissal without prejudice. Suing the government is a thankless proposition, and here the legalities are unclear, especially when suing the government itself:
“Shall” is a key word. Does ’shall’ mean ‘regardless of other funding priorities’? Legally that’s tricky, as it represents an attempt to bind the sovereign:
As my post indicated, the documents I read were not conclusive. Former Governor Romney’s spokesman offered this pearl:
“Governor Romney is on the campaign trail and will call you back.”
But Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney (who is seeking the Republican nomination for president), responded that the former governor had to consider what the state could afford. “The people of
Niftily done, Mr. Fehrnstrom, but completely non-responsive. For a state, “afford” is a matter of priorities, especially when the public housing had been fully funded in many previous years. For “what the state could afford,” therefore, read “what the governor chose to fund.”
“Captain, I am having difficulty translating the governor’s words.”
After recent meetings with representatives of the three authorities, the administration has proposed raising operating funds for the 247 authorities, calling the $15 million increase a down payment to start making up for years of inadequate funding, Young said. Patrick’s staff has also promised to realistically assess the cost of running public housing and to provide money to maintain it.
“Provide money” is comforting, but “realistically assess” is not.
Patrick has also recommended raising the capital budget for the housing authorities from $55 million to $85 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1, said Tina Brooks, the state’s undersecretary for housing and community development.
Verrry encouraging … but not enuff
Very encouraging: +$30 million in capital improvement money to accompany +$15 million in operating subsidy. Affordable housing always costs money, and if there’s more money, you get better affordability. The true cost-value gap of curing the stock is much higher than is currently being funded, even with these boosts:
A 2005 study by the Harvard Graduate School of Design found that despite the subsidy, authorities were losing on average about $140 a month for each apartment, Young said. That translated into an annual shortfall of about $79 million for the authorities, according to the Harvard study.
A $45 million plus-up is progress, but even if we cannibalize improvement funding and use it for operations, it’s not enough. It’s far short.
As I’ve written repeatedly elsewhere, public housing’s situation is dire nationwide; Federal public housing too is breaking down, and needs a bold Gordian-knot-cutting stroke. Back at home, the authorities did get one small prize:
Yesterday, the heads of the authorities in
That was a clearer case: the authorities had submitted reimbursement chits and been denied. But it’s pretty low for a state to repudiate submitted bills, and it’s a pretty modest win if all you do is get paid what you were clearly owed.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and Attorney General Martha Coakley, who was defending the state, signed an agreement to dismiss the suit.
With or without prejudice?
I am pleased to report, via Steve Young, that it was without prejudice.
What does the panel say?
