In the beginning it was recommended by both Ms. Gilleland and Chapman, the Cities Consultant, that the Section 8 program be turned over to Butler and Warren Counties.

 

Council did not want to do this, so they decided to keep the program and hire someone to run it as the Consultant recommended against the City or MPHA running its own program.

 

CONSOC was chosen to run the program again and the Inspections would be outsourced.

 

It was then discussed that the program would be cut by 10% a year through attrition until it got somewhere down to about 800 vouchers I believe.  No one at the time raised a red flag about doing this.  I would think that if this couldn't be done the Cities Consultant would have stated so, he didn't at least not publicly.

 

Then we fast forward to the Feb. 16, 2010, meeting.  Adkins states that the city cannot divest itself of a partial number of its vouchers citing, PIH 2007-6 (HA), which can be viewed here, http://www.disasterhousing.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/07/pih2007-6.pdf .

 

The gist of this directive from HUD is that the city can't divest itself of a partial number of the Vouchers unless the city can provide a "compelling reason", "The Department will not approve voluntary partial transfers unless there is a substantiated compelling reason."  Adkins further announced that a University in Cinci was going to do a study on the the Impact of Section 8 on Middletown.  What the study is going to investigate I can't recall.  Is it going to look at the economic impact, criminal impact, financial impact on the City Services and businesses, is it going to look at the paralell between excessive Section 8 and Poverty, etc.....I am not sure.

 

On February 18, 2010, I posted the following thread on MiddletoUSA asking Adkins for clarification on the HUD directive that he cities in the Feb. MPHA meeting.  You can view the thread here, http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2691 .  The question I posed went unanswered by Adkins or anyone else in the City Admin.

 

I have also to this date been unable to find an extension of the Directive that Adkins quoted, PIH 2007-6 (HA) which expired originally on March 31, 2008, and was renewed until March 31, 2009 and we are now past, March 31, 2010, 1 year past the last expiration date of this HUD directive.  I searched HUD for further extensions here, http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/ , but could find none.  This is the last extension notice I could find, http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/08/pih2008-19.pdf . 

 

So as of right now according to Adkins the city can not transfer anything less than the whole program unless it can provide a "compelling reason."   What exactly constitutes a "compelling reason" according to HUD....who knows.  Personally as a voucher is turned in I would file it away as "do not re-issue".  HUD will have a fit and probably throw some threats our way, but in the end what will they do, take away the program.....I doubt it.  The city is far to tied to the HUD purse strings and it clouds their judgment in my opinion, as to what is best for the city overall.

 

The waiting list was re-opened by CONSOC and I gather the city was not aware that they were re-opening it, from the reaction by the MPHA at their last meeting.

 

 

 

 

If this is to be policy, can someone--ANYONE--explain the logic of reopening the waiting list (which already has what, 200 names on it?)???

 

 

However if they pushed to increase Section 8 I predict there would be a major uprising in this city and a mass recall of every elected Official involved. 

 

As far as the new and Improved MPHA I haven't seen much of anything come out of it except for monthly reading of number of inspections, number of violations, number of vouchers in use, number on waiting list, number of this and number of that, pretty much info that can be posted on the web and those interested can look at it if they like.  There is little to no discussion of the program itself even though the Goals and Objective of the Plan for this year and the next 5 years has been submitted.   There has been no discussion of the impact of such a large program on the city overall financially and economically from both a Cities Financial standing and the Private Business Sectors point of view.  There has been no discussion on reducing the Voucher numbers.......basically there has been little to no discussion of anything of any substance, so far.

Watch Council/Admin find a way to eliminate CONSOC and the inspection group  through some contract breach, then take over everything themselves, also gaining control of the funding flow.  Simply too much $$$ involved to turn it away. Is this possible?

 

Either way, I see Section 8 GROWING in the near future, despite Mr.Mulligan's and Ms.Scott-Jones' concerns about the contract language.

Reading all the post about Middletown and the shape of our Section 8 program led me to look back at the interviews some council members gace MUSA back during eclection time. Here are three responses to the question

 

 

 

 

 

 

Housing assistance is the only means for some people to obtain a place to live. However, the current level of subsidized/Section 8 housing is unsustainable in our city. Middletown currently has 1665 vouchers in circulation for Section 8 housing assistance. As a percentage, Middletown carries over 60% of all vouchers for Butler County. This is simply unacceptable.

Regardless of their merit, the residents with these vouchers consume a vast amount of public services while contributing the lowest amount to city revenue. The City of Middletown is simply unable to maintain this level of public assistance and transfer of wealth. Middletown is operating on a bare minimum budget and should not be expected to carry the greatest amount of housing assistance in Butler County.

The City Council of Middletown holds the ultimate authority on the number of vouchers in our city. Regardless of how Middletown arrived at this number of vouchers, we must now reduce our voucher numbers substantially. This can be done through attrition or by directly cutting the number of allowable vouchers. City Council must not ignore this issue anymore. Our city needs those who are looking for permanent home ownership and to invest in our cities future.