Horner as the model
By William Wilen
Director of Litigation
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
The federal government’s General Accounting Office recently singled out Henry Horner Homes as a model public housing redevelopment. The GAO noted that of all the HOPE VI developments studied, only Horner had high resident participation, a high percentage of residents returning to the revitalized development, and the highest increase in property values in the surrounding neighborhood. HOPE VI, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is a program to revitalize all distressed public housing nationwide.
Two factors make Horner a model of effective redevelopment: (1) residents, because of the Horner Amended Consent Decree, are an equal partner in the development process; and (2) residents have the capacity to negotiate effectively with the all parties to the decree.
Under the decree, the major players in the redevelopment effort—the Chicago Housing Authority, The Habitat Company (as Receiver for CHA redevelopment under the Gautreaux ruling), the master developer and the management company—must first consult with and attempt to reach agreement with the Horner Residents Committee (HRC) regarding all aspects of redevelopment.
Seven elected building, block or area presidents at Horner and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law—the Horner class counsel—are part of the HRC.
If any party to the redevelopment project is unable to reach agreement with the HRC after good-faith negotiations, the consent decree provides that the matter be submitted to Horner court, presided by Judge James B. Zagel for resolution. If the matter involves Phase II of the decree,1 the parties can first submit the issue to the Horner mediator, John R. Schmidt, an attorney once with the Justice Department. All parties may appeal the mediator ruling to the Horner court.
The breadth of the decree is all-encompassing. For example, the Horner court has ruled that the following matters must be negotiated with the HRC:
•Tenant assignments to new units;
•Section 8 relocations (for those families who have chosen Section 8);
•Selection of higher income, non-Horner families for residency in the units reserved for families within 50-80% of the area median income;
•Approving “family splits,” whereby an adult household member with children may separate from the original leaseholder and obtain their own apartment;
•The timing and manner of management inspection of tenant apartments;
•The automobile towing policy;
•The timing and manner of HRC “walk-down” inspections of both new and existing units;
•The role of the CHA supported social service agency, the Home Visitors Program, and the HRC supported social service agency, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities; and,
•All major contracts (management contracts, redevelopment agreements, ground leases, property rights agreements, admission and occupancy policies, tenant leases).
Tenant empowerment at Horner ensures that tenants’ interests are not compromised during the redevelopment process. For example, because the HRC insisted on staffered demolition of the high-rise and mid-rise buildings, the vast majority of families can move directly from an existent Horner unit to a newly built townhome apartment. The limited movement of Horner residents is a stark contrast to the process employed at virtually every other CHA development, where most families were forced by CHA to temporarily relocate to the private market under the Section 8 program into highly segregated and poor areas of the city.
And because HRC must approve interior and exterior architectural designs for all new apartments, tenants’ desires for the new housing have been fulfilled. A recent architectural review in the Chicago Journal described the newly built Phase II units, designed by the Brinshore-Michaels team, as architecturally exciting:
Horner Homes has allowed local architects more room to be creative—generating more architectural diversity and some original takes on multifamily dwellings that expand the image of mixed-rate housing. [A] clean, modern expression prevails over ersatz decoration. The color palette extends beyond brick red to incorporate brighter hues of orange and sand, and the exterior brick veneer is more clearly expressed as the thin finish material it really is versus the faux mass-bearing walls trying to be evoked in more traditionalist designs. …What these new buildings establish is that sensible urbanism doesn’t have to be locked into pre-Depression architectural styles.” Chicago Journal, March 22, 2004.
In addition, all assignments to the new units are based on a formula devised by the HRC to ensure fairness.
The screening process, along with social services, ensures that about 90 percent of the Horner families will actually be able to move into the new units. Again, this is quite the reverse of screening systems used in other CHA developments that advocates estimate will net only 12 to 15 percent resident return.
Although Horner tenants have the legal capacity to force CHA and the others to consult and reach agreement with them, such power is of little value if tenants are unable to negotiate effectively. The negotiating power of the HRC is enhanced because
•it represents all the Horner families and is involved in all decisions at Horner; tenant involvement is much more limited at other developments.
•the Horner consent decree provides that they may hire consultants to assist in negotiations; for example, the HRC has hired a city-planner, who is well familiar with CHA, to help maneuver through the CHA’s bureaucracy and who also has considerable experience in redevelopment projects and extensive knowledge of the technical requirements and documents used in such redevelopment efforts..
•it hired a structural engineer who, for almost 15 years, has inspected both old and new Horner units. The engineer has been invaluable because he ensures that new units meet all health and safety requirements. The HRC does not allow any family to move into a new apartment until the engineer inspects the unit and certifies that it is safe and properly constructed. In Phase I, the engineer also prevented the construction of unsafe balconies and units that have failed to meet fire code requirements. He also has inspected and devised plans for reduction of health and safety violations in existing units and worked to bring them up to code while the families wait for their new units.
The HRC’s legal standing and their capacity to secure expert advisors combine to empower all Horner residents to protect their rights and interests throughout the redevelopment process. The HRC’s role, and the ongoing success of the Horner redevelopment, proves that authentic resident involvement is key to building stable, vibrant communities.
1 Phase I started in 1995 when the decree was signed and lasted until 2000. In Phase I, 461 units of public housing were constructed at a cost of $50 million (233 for Horner families and 228 for families with incomes between 50-80% of area median income) and the Horner Annex was completely rehabilitated at a cost of $10 million. Phase II began in 2000 and is scheduled to end in approximately 2010. In Phase II, an additional 746 units will be constructed at a cost of $171 million. Of these, 271 will be public housing units (of which 248 will be for very low income Horner families), 132 affordable units and 361 market rate units. All total, the completed development will consist of 1,318 units, of which 825 will be public housing units (63% of the total units—the highest of any CHA redevelopment effort) 526 will be very low income units for Horner families (40% of total units—also the highest of all CHA redevelopment efforts), 132 will be affordable units and 361 will be market rate units..
1