« | »

Officials Won’t Budge On Housing Projects

From Alabama’s Huntsville Times:

No change to Stone Manor plans

Tuesday, March 31, 2009
By CHALLEN STEPHENS

Housing Authority addresses southeast residents’ concerns

Michael Lundy, executive director of the Huntsville Housing Authority, told his board of directors on Monday that there are no plans to back out of the purchase of Stone Manor Luxury Apartments in south Huntsville in response to public outcry.

"The community is just very upset about the fact we bought the property, and felt that they should have been notified," said Lundy during a monthly meeting at the authority’s downtown headquarters.

Lundy has said that the authority hopes to use small, scattered apartments to "deconcentrate poverty" in Huntsville. On Feb. 27 the authority bought the 50 units of Stone Manor, marking the first large-scale public housing in south Huntsville.

At one point Monday, he told the board of directors: "I would never recommend selling the property. This is a good move for the Housing Authority."

The authority last fall began to tear down the 196 units of Councill Courts near Huntsville Hospital. The first 56 families were moved last year. The remaining 140 families could be relocated in the next couple months, and many could be moved to the south end of the city.

A color photocopy of Monday’s edition of The Times sat in front of each of the board members. The headline asked: "Does public housing mean there goes the neighborhood?"

Lundy addressed homeowners’ concerns about the potential for falling property values and increasing crime rates.

"As we all know, many of those perceptions are just that. Perceptions," Lundy told the board. In particular, Lundy objected to concerns about crime rates. "That’s one notion we’re prepared to dispel."

During the last year, said Lundy, police reported just two crimes at Councill Courts, including a stolen bicycle and a case of disturbing the peace. The housing development also did not harm property values among the nearby historic homes of Twickenham, he said.

He said the authority would maintain the "curb appeal" at Stone Manor. He said elderly residents who are awaiting a new building may be the ones placed in Stone Manor…

The board on Monday passed an annual operating budget, approving $10.8 million in operating expenses through April 2010. That includes $1.8 million in salaries, $2.2 million in maintenance and $648,825 in administrative expenses.

A nonprofit agency funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the authority anticipates taking in just $1.9 million in rent during the year

This article is actually a few days old, but as others have noted below, it is all too emblematic of the unbridled control of even the most local government official.

(Thanks to Colonel1961 for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, April 4th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

24 Responses to “Officials Won’t Budge On Housing Projects”

  1. Colonel1961 says:

    Here is the end result of concentrated power at the Federal level.

    (source: The Huntsville Times via al.com)

    —–

    http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1238490924174180.xml&coll=1

    ‘Michael Lundy, executive director of the Huntsville Housing Authority, told his board of directors on Monday that there are no plans to back out of the purchase … in response to public outcry. ‘

    “The community is just very upset about the fact we bought the property, and felt that they should have been notified,” said Lundy … at the authority’s downtown headquarters. ‘

    —–

    They report to no local authority. No fear of redress. Read some of the idiot comments that accompany the article. One miscreant goes off on a rant about a country that was built off of slave labor and destroying other cultures. I guess he was brainwashed by our public school system…

    • U NO HOO says:

      Reminds me of a local city that put a referendum on the ballot for a new city center, police station, city hall, library, etc. bond issue. It was voted down. The city created an authority, lo and behold, the city now has “a new city center, police station, city hall, library, etc.” financed by authority bonds without public approval.

      The only thing that bugs me is they closed a block of a main street, now we have to turn, turn, turn to get to where we used to be able to get straight to.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Our city has pulled a similar stunt, recently announcing that the North and South side streets around the courthouse will be blocked off for a pedestrian mall, making trips to downtown, e.g., Courthouse, offices, even more of a nightmare.

      And I know I’ve posted this sentiment a few hundred times around the net, but I’m compelled to type it again: Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, et al. would not have stood for any of this. But, here we are (editorial ‘I’) fat and happy – and American Idol is more important than our Constitutional rights…

      Ugh.

    • curvyred says:

      We had a similar incident occur in our town – they purchased historical townhomes – and tore them down to make “affordable new housing” the new homes are $99k, only low income people are eligible to purchase the homes and the really odd thing is many older homes in our area can be purchased for $25 – 50k with a little sweat equity, and most homes sale for $60-85k.

    • Gila Monster says:

      The board on Monday passed an annual operating budget, approving $10.8 million in operating expenses through April 2010. That includes $1.8 million in salaries, $2.2 million in maintenance and $648,825 in administrative expenses.

      A nonprofit agency funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the authority anticipates taking in just $1.9 million in rent during the year.

      Let’s see, $10.8 mil budget with only $1.9 mil of income. Yup, sounds like a federal government project to me. I realize that this is subsidized housing but damn, the “rent” fails to even cover the basic maintenance of the property.

      These morons don’t have a clue.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Of course this Lundy idiot mentions that home values in Twickenham (lots of multi-million dollar ante bellum homes) have not been diminished by this housing – ignoring that fact (and hoping people are just plain stupid) that at least a quarter-of-a-mile ring of business/legal/hospital/park/museum districts separate Twickenham from anything remotely resembling public housing…

      Steve: thanks for highlighting the salary and admin expenses for these remora. Ludicrous. And thanks for allowing space on your site for all to see this insanity!

    • jobeth says:

      Colonel,

      “And I know I’ve posted this sentiment a few hundred times around the net,”

      Maybe…but it bears repeating…often!

  2. caligirl9 says:

    “Deconcentrate poverty” is just a PC way of saying “we are bringing a little bit of ‘da hood to your neighborhood. Cheers!”

    I have no problem with helping elderly CITIZENS with housing. It’s moving in single-parent families (read: absent baby daddies and baby mamas whose litters have lots of baby daddies) that brings down property values as the rugrats learn how to ditch school, steal, do drugs, rape and destroy property.

    • jobeth says:

      “Deconcentrate poverty”

      Guess they’ve never put a few bad apples in the barrel and watched what invariably happens.

      And of course you would never see any of this “deconcentrated poverty” in THEIR barrels.

      I wouldn’t be angry if they would try living with this group themselves…Sure, it could happen….NOT.

  3. proreason says:

    Now they are no longer just redistibuting wealth, they are redistributing the deadbeat lifestyle.

    It’s only “fair” that crime, poverty and pestilence be shared with everyone.

    After all, people who have worked their entire lives to protect and provide for their families stole that effort from the lazy asses who would have been able to do the same if the hard workers weren’t such racists..

    • catie says:

      Proreason, I would like to see them redistribute wealth in my brother’s tony suburb of Glen Ellyn, IL. They’re all a big bunch of libs and they should “share the wealth” as well but they don’t.
      Most of the times you drive by public housing they’re sitting on the stoop, smoking something, drinking beer and all their little children (I was going to use another word but thought better of it) are playing in the streets. The deadbeat lifestyle should be shared by all.
      This is ludicrous.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      You make a good point, PR – redistributing the ‘lifestyle’. Gee, wonder which lifestyle is going to impact the other the most? These apartments are in the middle of a nice, very quiet, well-kept area of town. Solid middle-class folks that cut their grass and bring the garbage can down from the curb the same day it’s taken out. People that, indeed, worked their butts off to move a rung or two up the ladder – only to have the ladder shortened by Big Brother.

      I know a few families who live in that extended neighborhood (haven’t had the heart to call them yet to discuss it) and can imagine that they are sick beyond belief. There is no doubt – none, zero, nada – that those property values will plummet and there will be an exodus. It’s sick. I can’t get my mind off of the story…

      1st to Fight lives in the Huntsville area – he may know more details.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”Now they are no longer just redistibuting wealth, they are redistributing the deadbeat lifestyle…..”

      I don’t want the government redistributing my wealth. How about they redistribute my work ethic instead?!

    • Colonel1961 says:

      JMG: couldn’t agree more. How does this reinforce the idea that you have to work hard to get ahead? Sadly, that was rhetorical. The new-fashioned way to get ahead is to be ‘poor’ and then have government thugs throw some folks out of the place you want to live in…

      Having a heck of a hard time avoiding violent or vulgar language. Time to go work in the yard. Gee, there’s that ‘w’ word again.

  4. jrmcdonald says:

    Let’s put some cancer into Mr. Lundy to test this theory of moving the parasite into a host.

  5. canary says:

    Colonial, Prehaps similar to “bus”ing. I remember checking into renting in a nice new built fancy apartment building. I was told that there was a waiting list, that welfare had priority over someone like me that could actually pay the full price. Of course, didn’t want it after learning, and it turned out, alot of the newer neighborhoods had become section 8. So, I bought an older house in an older neighborhood, where so far we’ve stopped section 8 housing. What also stuns me, is welfare puts families in homes where each child get’s their own bedroom, when my children have had to share bedrooms.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      True, Canary. I searched the utility allowances for our local housing authority (I mean, these folks can’t be expected to pay their own utility bills – right?) and it was based upon houses up to FIVE bedrooms. Wouldn’t want the little breeders to share a room, now, would we. And while I agree that calling them ‘little breeders’ is harsh, it sure as heck is accurate.

      For what it’s worth, my mother shared a room (and a bed) with her Mother, yes her Mother (her Father died young) and did not have her own room until her brother moved out – she was sixteen. Of course, it was very difficult for them, but she walked away with something known as ‘character’. Sadly, one of the rarer ‘elements’ in the universe today…

    • jobeth says:

      Colonel,

      “Of course, it was very difficult for them, but she walked away with something known as ‘character’”

      “Difficult” is totally foreign to the “poor”. Everything must be made easy or it is “unfair” to their delicate natures.

      I remember when we first started putting time limits of 2 years per lifetime on the “poor” who receive welfare.

      The hue and cry about THATS SLAVERY! was everywhere. Poor things…GRRRRR

      What was slavery was that I not only had to go to work for MY livelihood PLUS theirs…Who was the real slave here?

      Character? Another word that has no meaning what-so-ever for that crowd.

      And by the way…During the Clinton years didn’t they keep saying that character didn’t count? Fits his (and Obalmy’s) minions

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Great point about slavery. I see one when I look in the mirror. 40% (or more) of my total wages are sucked up via taxes and spent by the gubmint. Now, some of this is important and necessary: roads, ICBMs, prisons, sewers, police, but too much of that goes to deadbeats. Ne’er-do-wells. People who will never, ever contribute to society.

      I took a ride today and stopped at a mini-mart. When I pulled up there was an older Cadillac filled with two middle-aged men and four kids in the back seat. They were buying beer. (I bought some wine.) When I came out, one of the kids asked about my car and then said – and I quote – ‘You’s rich!’ I just smiled at the kid and laughed. What I wanted to say was that I would be rich (or richer – depending on one’s definition) if I wasn’t working my ass of to pay for all six of their housing, food, education, after-school programs, medical care, ‘tax refunds’, utilities, ad infinitum. But somehow, ‘I’m rich’. Talk about irony…

  6. bousquem says:

    I don’t mind moving elderly poverty people in and having them actually contribute to the area. I do object to moving in welfare trash into the place and having it turn into another cesspool of a complex. Also all that is going to happen is spread the gangbangers out over farther areas, thus opening up new areas to grow and take over. I’d probably be moving out of those apartments if I had them moving in.

    I’d also like to comment that if they want to solve the problem of crappy neighborhoods, institute a program like or help fund a group like habitat for humanity. Even though alot of people volunteer to help build the houses, the owners actually have to help pay back the loan and do X number of hours of work to qualify for a house. I remember being a really crappy neighborhood digging a trench for electrical cables and doing siding on a house that was part of Habitat for Humanity. The group had done alot of other houses on that street and area. You could tell which ones those houses were as the houses were neat as a pin, well maintained; looked like somone pulled them from the suburbs. The rest of the houses looked like rat trapped pits that one match could burn down the whole lot of them.

    • jobeth says:

      “I do object to moving in welfare trash into the place and having it turn into another cesspool of a complex.”

      Thats exactly what will happen. We had a couple of decent lower middle class apartment complexes where I used to live. Decent people lived there.

      Then HUD came in and forced them to take on “Section 8” (subsidized) tenents.

      Within two years it was a mess. The decent people had nearly all moved out due to crime and drugs that of course spilled into the near by bought homes. They then began to be sold..and of course decent people wouldn’t buy them…Guess who did? Yep, Absentee Land Lords who then rented them to the same type people. They showed up with the Section 8 letters in hand.

      That whole neighbor hood completely went to pot with in 10 years.

      Its a high crime area now.

      When my mother and dad bought their home there in ’75 it was a really good place with super helpful neighbors. The people didn’t have much money, but most were of the WWII group so had values and kept their modest properties painted and neat.

      You should see the place now…It’s “da hood” with trash everywhere and everyone owning loud barking “killer” dogs.
      (I love dogs..have 4 myself, but we make sure we are good dog neighbors)

      I’m glad most of this happened after Mon and Dad died.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      ‘…went to pot…’ And crack!

    • jobeth says:

      Colonel…and meth, and glue & paint in a bag (for the “really poor” kids)and …on and on…

      So sad…..

  7. pagar says:

    How about they redistribute my work ethic instead?!

    Can we still say work ethic? I’m pretty sure that violates some leftist’s something.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »