The Mayor, speaking at a senior town hall:

“One thing I have learned is we talk about adding more affordable housing… But sometimes when it comes down to individual products our actions as communities and neighborhoods don’t match our concern for affordable housing… The issue of homelessness is an all eight wards problem. The same is true for affordability. We all have to be a part of the solution.”

The Mayor released her first budget proposal of her second term in office this week. After months of saying that DC needs to build 36,000 units of housing, 12,000 of which are affordable, within five years, we expected something a little more dramatic than the small increases she put forward for a few programs. To be clear, we always welcome increased spending on affordable housing, but the Mayor’s rhetoric on affordable housing far outstrips her spending. To hear her talk locally or nationally, her investments in affordable housing are transformative and effective. And while those investments may be greater than her predecessors, for which she deserves credit, it is not productive to overstate the impact of these investments while DC residents are daily experiencing the crunch of our ever-present affordable housing crisis.

We want to take a minute to really assess the Mayor’s investments, to figure out whether the investments are enough to meet the critical needs in the community, whether she is even fully funding her own plans and commitments, and whether she has fully funded the highest priorities of the community as identified and developed by the housing coalitions we engage in actively, like Fair Budget Coalition and the Way Home Campaign.

First, we can start with the Mayor’s commitment to end family and chronic homelessness, laid out in Homeward DC. As a reminder, the Mayor previously committed to ending chronic homelessness by 2017 and family homelessness by 2019. All homelessness was supposed to be “rare, brief and nonrecurring” by 2020. The good news is that the Mayor fully funded the need for Permanent Supportive Housing for families this year. However, she only funded enough Permanent Supportive Housing for 325 individuals experiencing chronic homelessness (33% of the need). That leaves 661 individuals who have a high chance of suffering severe health consequences or death without housing next year.

 

 

Targeted Affordable Housing is another program in the toolbox to end homelessness. The Mayor only devoted enough money to serve 80 families with Targeted Affordable Housing, even though we estimated that 984 families exiting Rapid Re-Housing or shelter would need that long term affordable housing next year. That’s 8% of the need. She only added 20 slots of Targeted Affordable Housing for individuals, out of the 154 who will need it next year. That’s 13% of the need.) That leaves 134 folks experiencing chronic homelessness on the street or in shelter who have already been found eligible for this program, but there are not enough resources.
After a year of redoing our eviction system and raising awareness on the trauma of eviction, and after yet another year where our eviction prevention program ran out of funds halfway through the year, the Mayor not only didn’t increase the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, she cut it by over $620,000. It’s a simple, direct program that does exactly what it’s supposed to do—prevents evictions.

 

As you probably know, the DC Housing Authority waiting list has 40,000 households on it waiting for a voucher and has been closed for 6 years. Our clients report that they are on the list for more than 10 years before getting called for a voucher, even when they have the highest preference: homelessness. Yet, once again, the Mayor put $0 towards tenant vouchers via the Local Rent Supplement Program which provides affordable housing vouchers to DC households on that waiting list. We had asked her to fund enough vouchers to serve 500 households.

You probably heard that the Mayor increased the Housing Production Trust Fund from $100 million to $130 million. What you may not know is that only 40% of every dollar of the fund goes to very low income DC residents (0-30% Area Median Income (AMI)). The increase of $30 million only adds $12 million to the pot, bringing the total investment in deeply affordable housing to $52 million. That may seem like a lot of money, but producing affordable housing for the lowest income residents costs a lot of money. We had asked for $140 million devoted to 0-30% AMI, and estimated that it would build about 770 units. $52 million could build about 286 units of affordable housing, if the Mayor had put enough operating dollars in the budget, which she didn’t. Operating dollars must be matched to the trust fund dollars in order to build deeply affordable housing. We need over $8 million in operating money to actually produce those 286 units. With a mere $1.47 million, we can only hope for 50 units of deeply affordable housing.

 

Most disappointing may be the Mayor’s failure to devote even a single additional dollar to public housing repairs. The DC Housing Authority released a report in December stating that 2500 of its units were in critical shape and needed immediate repairs to be habitable. The agency said it needed $340 million this year and $1.3 billion over ten years to stabilize the public housing stock. After a series of Washington City Paper articles on the real human consequences of living in decrepit, mold- and lead-filled public housing, a letter from tenant advocates urging significant investment, and the DC Housing Authority itself lobbying for funds, it is remarkable that public housing didn’t make it to the top of her housing priority list.

What about the Mayor’s new “workforce” housing program? It’s $20 million for people who make up to $140,000 or 120% of AMI. Lots of our clients work and need affordable housing, but far far more DC residents need assistance at lower-income thresholds than this, even among those who work. While we support every single resident in DC having access to housing that is affordable for their means, we believe, and data supports this, that the greatest need for government-subsidized housing is for extremely low-income residents. Until DC makes a larger dent in its homelessness and displacement crisis, we must prioritize funding deeply affordable housing first.

We are disappointed that the Mayor’s investments in affordable housing and ending homelessness to do not rise to the level of her rhetoric on these topics. Luckily, the Mayor’s proposal is just that, a proposal. The DC Council is now tasked with ensuring that the budget reflects DC residents’ priorities. But before we start focusing on the Council, don’t forget to drop the Mayor a note to share whether you think she invested enough in affordable housing: @mayorbowser (Twitter) or mayor@dc.gov (email). We’ll continue updating this blog as we learn more.

For more info, check out:

• The Fair Budget Coalition’s report card on the Mayor’s budget proposal.
• DC Fiscal Policy Institute toolkits on affordable housing and homeless services

Take action! https://actionnetwork.org/letters/stop-displacement-repair-public-housing-and-end-homelessness?source=direct_link&

 

Last week the Fair Budget Coalition released its annual budget recommendations, asking for significant investments and greater accountability in the programs and services that low-income residents need to survive and thrive in the District. The recommendations cover six categories of needed investment and reform: housing security, community safety, food access, healthcare, economic justice and fair taxes & public deals.

As we’ve mentioned before, we co-founded the Fair Budget Coalition and strongly support its mission and work to this day. While our expertise and policy work primarily lie in the areas of affordable housing and homeless services, FBC allows us to learn about and advocate for the full range of our clients’ needs, recognizing the interconnectness of those needs. People experiencing homelessness also need better access to food, in shelters and in the community. They need criminal justice reform. They need easier, lower barrier access to healthcare. They need help with transportation to job training programs. Their kids need quality daycare, fair discipline in schools, and better mental health and domestic violence prevention services.

That is not the only reason, though, that we participate in FBC—we believe that our advocacy will be stronger if we work together with our partners and allies towards the same goals, even if those goals are much broader than what we might have tackled alone. People and organizations fighting for the needs and rights of low-income DC residents are often pitted against each other to the detriment of their missions and goals…and ultimately to the detriment of the people they serve. This is a strategy as old as time. The way to effectively fight it, by joining together, is equally steeped in history—represented in proverb (“Sticks in a bundle are unbreakable” Kenyan proverb) and even Aesop fable:

A certain Father had a family of Sons, who were forever quarreling among themselves. No words he could say did the least good, so he cast about in his mind for some very striking example that should make them see that discord would lead them to misfortune.

 One day when the quarreling had been much more violent than usual and each of the Sons was moping in a surly manner, he asked one of them to bring him a bundle of sticks. Then handing the bundle to each of his Sons in turn he told them to try to break it. But although each one tried his best, none was able to do so.

The Father then untied the bundle and gave the sticks to his Sons to break one by one. This they did very easily.

 “My Sons,” said the Father, “do you not see how certain it is that if you agree with each other and help each other, it will be impossible for your enemies to injure you? But if you are divided among yourselves, you will be no stronger than a single stick in that bundle.”

Become part of this bundle of sticks! Add your voice to those of the 100 organizations and individuals that make up the Fair Budget Coalition, to fight for a racially and economically just budget this year. You can start flexing our community’s strength by sending a message to Mayor Bowser here, and follow #PutPeopleFirst on Twitter for updates as this important work moves forward.

About a month ago, Mayor Bowser closed the doors to DC General family shelter. After seeing Mayor Bowser’s tweets about the closure of DC General using the hashtag #PromisesKept, we took a moment to reflect on the fact that closing DC General was never the only, or even the most important, promise Mayor Bowser made to families experiencing homelessness.

We are not talking about Mayor Bowser’s promise not to close DC General until the replacement shelters were ready. With only two out of six replacement shelters open at the time DC General closed (now three out of six are open), Mayor Bowser clearly did not keep that promise.

We are not even talking about the implicit promise that the Mayor of the District of Columbia makes to her constituents—that she will refrain from endangering their health and lives, particularly when they are quite literally being sheltered by their government. She broke that promise when, despite over 1300 individuals, 50 organizations, and 8 DC Council members asking her to wait to demolish a nearby building until the families had moved out of the shelter, she went ahead with the demolition mere weeks before the final few dozen families exited. According to the DCist: “…deconstruction has resumed on Building 9, an uninhabited building about 250 feet away from the main shelter that the administration of Mayor Muriel Bowser has insisted on demolishing while residents are still on site.” No reason was ever given for this complete disregard of her constituents’ opposition and the health of the families living there. She never even responded to the petition.

We are instead talking about a promise that Mayor Bowser made that would have rendered these other promises moot: her promise to end family homelessness by 2018. In Mayor Bowser’s Twitter thread about the closure of DC General there is a video excerpt of her 2015 State of the District address that begins with her statement about closing DC General. Right before that excerpt, though, the Mayor had just said: “…we will deliver on another promise: ending family homelessness by 2018.” In fact, closing DC General was initially presented as secondary to her primary goal of ending family homelessness. Her transition plan listed “End Family Homelessness by 2018” before it listed “Close DC General” and even the DC General closure goal focused, rightfully, on how to prevent and end family homelessness: “In working to produce more affordable and subsidized housing as well as implementing additional prevention services, as Mayor, Muriel Bowser’s goal will be to lesson [sic] the number of families and individuals in need of shelter. Muriel is committed to finding long-term solutions for would-be homeless families and individuals before turning to a shelter, developing smaller shelter alternatives, and, ultimately, closing DC General.” See also here and here for times where the Mayor reiterated that promise.

Unfortunately, the Mayor has not kept this promise either. We are in the last month of 2018 and DC is nowhere near to ending family homelessness. As of November 19, there were 422 families in the overflow hotels, up to 130 families in the DC General replacement shelters and over 100 families in other emergency shelters. It’s not even clear how much progress the Administration has made keeping this promise. The Bowser Administration often suggests that the HUD Point in Time count demonstrates that their efforts at ending family homelessness are working. They point to the downward trajectory from 2016 on of families who are staying on the street or in shelter. The Mayor’s first term, though, from 2015 to 2018, only shows an 18% decrease in the number of families counted as homeless by HUD, which is still significantly higher than the number of homeless families in 2008.

There is other data that complicates the Mayor’s narrative of progress on ending family homelessness. DC schools collect data on how many children experience homelessness—basically its own “point in time” count of homeless students. That number significantly increased between 2016 and 2017 and remained level between 2017 and 2018. The number of homeless students almost doubled between 2015 and 2018, the years of Mayor Bowser’s first term.

We are troubled by these numbers. Since the HUD Point in Time data only counts families who are in the District’s shelter system or literally on the street, we worry that looking at that data only tells us how well DC is doing at keeping families out of emergency shelter, not how well DC is doing at ending family homelessness. To honestly assess DC’s progress on ending family homelessness, DC must look at how many families are in shelter, how many children are struggling to learn while homeless, how many families are turned away from shelter even when they have nowhere to go, and how many families are bouncing from couch to couch because they have no safe, stable home of their own. Only when all DC families have safe and secure housing will DC have ended family homelessness.

It is indisputable that the Mayor has not yet ended family homelessness. We have an opportunity now to reset the clock for her second term, reassess DC’s approach to family homelessness, and devote the necessary resources to truly end family homelessness in DC.

The Mayor is not the only one who needs to be held to a promise to end homelessness, of course. Just last week the DC Council voted to give $20 million in revenue from online sales tax that was supposed to be devoted to ending homelessness to large commercial property tax cuts. That money could end homelessness for 700-1000 households. The bill requires one more vote to become law, so we will certainly be sharing our position with DC Council: that they must  keep their promise to devote online sales tax revenue to ending homelessness. (For more information, click here. To take action, click here.)

You can find this and other Legal Clinic testimony before the DC Council on the Resources section of our website.

Testimony before the Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Bill 22-0809, “Eviction with Dignity Act of 2018”

Amber W. Harding
September 24, 2018

Good morning Councilmember Bonds and members of the Committee. My name is Amber Harding and I am an attorney at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. The Legal Clinic envisions – and since 1987 has worked towards – a just and inclusive community for all residents of the District of Columbia, where housing is a human right and where every individual and family has equal access to the resources they need to thrive.

There is no eviction with dignity. There is no eviction without trauma and harm. We can, and we must, do everything we can first to reduce evictions, and then to reduce the trauma and harm that come with any remaining evictions. Since DC is not even treading water on our affordable housing crisis, losing more than it produces every year, since DC underfunds eviction prevention funds every year, since there are not enough free lawyers for all the tenants in eviction court—evictions will continue at high rates and high human cost. Since DC hasn’t done enough to stop evictions, you must at the very least do everything you can to reduce the pain of eviction.

So much of our work deals with the aftermath of eviction—the loss of all worldly possessions (including original documents and objects and photographs that are all that remained as reminders of loved ones), the loss of safety and security, the loss of a place where the family and friends can gather and be, and the addition of an eviction record that marks the person as someone for future landlords to be wary of.

The Evicted exhibit at the National Building Museum depicts DC as “tenant friendly,” but not “low-income tenant friendly.” This distinction rings true. Like our criminal justice system, our eviction system discriminates on class and race. Higher income tenants might violate their lease as much as lower income tenants, but they have the resources to move to another housing unit long before they are evicted, even before they reach court, perhaps even before they get a notice. In DC, our wealth disparity is also a racial disparity. Walk into landlord tenant court any day of the week and try to argue that eviction is blind to race. No—eviction comes for black and brown people in DC almost exclusively.

When the Marshalls instituted changes to eviction procedure that provided a real opportunity for reducing harm but left a gap in our law for how exactly it would work, the Council unanimously passed a strong emergency bill that required landlords to store tenants’ belongings for thirty days. When concerns were raised by landlords and nonprofit housing providers, the Council executed a “repeal and replace” that significantly shifted the burden and cost of eviction right back onto tenants, instead of carving out reasonable exemptions for those landlords who could not actually bear the costs under the new system. But now there is an opportunity to thoughtfully meet the real needs of small or nonprofit landlords while not subsidizing the business of eviction for larger, high profit landlords.

The critical question, it seems, is who should bear the costs of eviction—the tenant, the landlord, or the taxpayer? I stand with my legal services colleagues and support their recommendations to shift some of the burden of eviction off of the people who can least afford to bear it— low-income tenants.

A woman called us in August who had just been evicted under the new law. She had been paying market rent at Wingate until she lost her disability benefits and was sued for nonpayment of rent. She spent the two week period before her eviction packing all of her belongings and throwing away as much as she could. That gave her no time to figure out storage. We began to work with her to restore her benefits but she had boxes of medical documents in her apartment that she needed for her case, and she was worried that she would lose them in the eviction before we could ever file an appeal. She was staying in Union Station and surrounding parks. Because of her health conditions, she was very limited in what she could carry around with her.

She researched storage units and found one that would only charge her about $55 for the first month of storage, mainly administrative fees. The second month would be about $150. She called every social service agency and church she could think of for help with the storage fee, to no avail. (Emergency Rental Assistance does not pay for storage.) Next, she called DC Councilmembers. She started with the Chairman and her Ward Councilmember, then at-large members and then others. Each Council office stated either that they were out of constituent services money or that they were not allowed to spend that money on storage—that it could only be used for rent or utilities.

At that point, we gave up. It was taking too long and she only had 7 days to retrieve her belongings. Two legal clinic attorneys and two other non-profit advocates drove to Wingate one day and moved all of her stuff into our cars, drove it to the storage facility and paid for her first month of storage. (I am not recommending that this be the solution for all tenants.) Her benefits came through last week, just in enough time to pay for the second month of storage, and she is actively looking for new housing as we speak.

During the 7 days, here is some of what she experienced:

• Her rights were very unclear, as was the process for enforcing her rights. She was told two different time periods by the Marshalls and by the landlord for removing her belongings. She was very confused about whether the day of eviction counted as the first day or not, and whether weekends were included in the count. (What if the property manager office is closed on weekends?) It was also unclear whether she had one block of time or would be allowed to split up her time over several days.

• It is not practical to limit moving to 8 continuous hours if the hours also have to overlap with the business hours of the property management office. Most of the people she asked for help moving could only do so in the evenings after work. But the property management office closed around 5PM. She found it nearly impossible to find people to help her during business hours.
• She very much felt at the mercy of the landlord that had just evicted her. She said that if she called one of the property managers, she would be rude and mean and probably would put unreasonable restrictions on her move. She felt she had to wait until she could reach the property manager who she had a better relationship with in order to arrange the times to pick up her belongings. When she first arrived at the property, the security guard gave her a hard time and asked if she was “allowed on the property.” She also said she didn’t trust the landlord not to go through her belongings after she was evicted.
• Our client said she “felt like a criminal” during the move out, and the landlord expended significant resources to monitor the move. When we arrived at Wingate, one property manager and two security guards supervised her move, which took several hours. They said she was the first one to go through the new protocol and they were very irritated with how much of their time would now be spent monitoring people moving their belongings.

This was not an eviction with dignity. We can do better. We look forward to working with the Committee and our legal services colleagues to further develop this legislation and the emergency legislation passed this summer to ensure that we are doing everything we can to minimize the harm and trauma of eviction.

 

In just over two days, 550 individuals and 30 organizations signed a petition to ask Mayor Bowser to stop the demolition of buildings on the DC General campus until the families experiencing homelessness have moved out of the nearby shelter, and then to use the highest level of protection and care when conducting demolition and building so as to protect the health of the women who stay at Harriet Tubman shelter, and the people who stay at the DC Jail.

Today, we dropped off the first round of signatures to the office of the Mayor.  We’re still collecting signatures, so please still sign on and spread the word!

#StopDCGDemo

We are grateful for the show of community solidarity and participation in the face of environmental, health, and housing injustice, and will keep our readers updated on the petition and anything else we learn about what is going on at #DCGeneral.

 In the words of petition signers themselves:

 

Why not just wait until the kids are gone Ms. Mayor?

There is no reason to endanger the lives of the people living in the shelter! 

There is absolutely no reason to put families at risk for anything. “Safe enough” is not a yardstick measure.

Families must be housed before demolition!

A simple act of refraining from acting until all families are out of the area would make all the difference.

It’s inhumane to commence demolition at DC General until all families are relocated and safely housed.

I urge Mayor Bowser to reconsider her rigid timetable that calls for demolition of DC General buildings before the new transitional housing facilities are ready to receive those families who will be displaced. Hasty action is likely to (1) put vulnerable children in harm’s way and (2) result in excessive costs to taxpayers for motel rentals in the interim.

Mayor Bowser, there is no excuse for taking such an action.  All you have to do is agree, apologize for the scheduling error, and wait until all the families have moved out.  There are no other options for a person with any conscience!

I am writing both as an advocate and a decade-long resident of the District. Please delay demolition of DC General buildings until all families have vacated the campus. It will be much easier to delay this for a few more months than deal with potential repercussions of continuing demolition, with its unknown health risks, for years to come.

I work with families at the shelter through the Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance. Please do not begin demolition while there are still children living at DC General.  Even if the risk is small, there is no level of risk that is worth it.  I understand that there is a fiscal impact as the result of the delays, but if these children suffer health effects, the fiscal impact could be far worse.  Please delay demolition until all of the families have moved out. Thank you.

Mayor Bowser, I know your intentions are good, but a construction deadline is not worth risking the health of children. Remember, officials in Flint, MI, thought they were doing the right thing, too. As someone who voted for you, I ask you to do the right thing to ensure the health and safety of some of our city’s most vulnerable residents.

I’m pregnant and homeless in DC. I’ve been having a very hard time getting housing. Closing this shelter before there’s a replacement is a BIG MISTAKE! Please don’t close the shelter before we have a replacement!

Common sense dictates withholding demolition of a hazardous building until families, including small children, are out of harm’s way.

I want these families to have the same health and safety considerations that my family in Ward 3 has. When we have welcomed our new neighbors into our Ward 3 family shelter, and all the other wards have done the same, then demolition can begin.

Any potential health risk for children and families is too high. Whatever the cost, we need to ensure children’s safety first.

To risk the health and safety of DC’s most vulnerable because of an arbitrary construction deadline would not only be the height of capriciousness but would border on cruelty.

Mayor Bowser, please protect the people of this city as you’d protect your own family. After all, they are.

We have failed the families at DC General time and again. Rushing them out without permanent/stable housing, and conducting demolition before they leave is criminal, shameful, and not who we are as a community. We don’t have the luxury of making this decision lightly.

Please do not start demolition of DC General until all of the families have moved out. It’s an unnecessary risk to their health and well-being.

Please wait until these families have moved.  I am sure there are strong financial pressures to move forward immediately, but please choose the higher moral ground of valuing the health and welfare of these families.

Please wait until the families in DC General family shelter are gone to demolish building 9. As a mom of two who has dealt with living with lead dust and had a scare of elevated levels, I entreat you as a new mom to have sympathy for the moms living in DC General. Please don’t expose their children to the dangerous neuro-toxins that will be released in the air if Bldg 9 is demolished early. I hope you never have to deal with elevated lead levels with your baby. The dust gets on everything and children are always putting their hands in their mouths. Thank you for waiting to demolish Bldg 9 until the families in DC General are relocated later this winter.
Ward 5 Resident and mom of two boys, ages 5 and 2

Do the right thing – think about the health and safety of the families living on that campus — already not a pretty site.  Demolition will only make it worse.

I voted for you because I believe in that you will do right by us all.

We are horrified when we see children in harmful condition on the border because of immigration, we must be equally horrified to see children in our own city placed in horrible conditions.

This is their home, your home, and all of our home. We hope you will do the right thing. 

Dear Mayor – Our neighbors deserve more respect than this. Please don’t demolish any part of DC General until it’s completely vacant. What’s another few months when the welfare of children is at stake? Thank you in advance for doing the right thing. 

Our city needs to protect kids from environmental toxins that can have a serious harmful impact on the health of children and families living near DC General, Harriet Tubman shelter, and people who are incarcerated. Mayor Bowser, delay the demolition of Building 9 until all families are housed a safe distance away from the site.

Do not demolish the buildings near DC General until all residents have left. Do not put these families at risk. The welfare of all of dc’s residents should be your highest priority. My vote will always go to the person who demonstrates that they care about DC’s residents and their health. Development is less important than people. Stop this demolition for just a few weeks, please!

Please don’t demolish any buildings until the residents of the shelter have all been moved out. It’s dehumanizing and unsafe to be turning their already bleak surroundings into even more of a danger zone. 

This is unconscionable.  I have no idea what could justify endangering these families. 

This isn’t right.

 

 

Last Monday, July 9, we delivered a letter signed by 46 experts and organizations to the DC Council asking them to support emergency legislation introduced by Councilmember Trayon White (Ward 8) with the goals of stopping any abatement, demolition, or deconstruction activity on the nearby buildings until the families have exited and ensuring that families move to safe, stable settings before DC General closes. But early Tuesday morning, just hours before the DC Council’s last legislative session before their summer recess, we received a new draft of the legislation. This version no longer met our goals. We withdrew our support, as did several other organizations. Nevertheless, after multiple Councilmembers expressed serious concerns about what was happening at DC General, the new, weakened legislation passed unanimously.

Why did the legislation change at the last minute?

In order for the DC Council to pass emergency legislation, it cannot have a cost, or a “fiscal impact.” The Mayor wields a lot of power in determining whether a bill will have a cost. (It is not unusual for the Mayor to say a bill that she opposes has a larger fiscal impact than anyone expects—it is a pretty common and effective way for her to fight the Council’s legislation.) On Monday, the Department of General Services alleged a cost of $950,000 for  “demobilizing” the workers currently engaged in abatement and demolition on the DC General site. This alleged cost effectively prevented Councilmember Trayon White from including a prohibition on abatement or demolition in the bill. (Bills generally can be passed “subject to appropriation,” but the Council has a practice of not allowing emergency bills to move forward if they have a fiscal impact, because they cannot go into effect until the funding is devoted to implement the bill—and the Mayor has complete control over that funding outside of the annual budget process.)

The part that required safe transfer of families prior to closure, meanwhile, was under attack by the Bowser Administration as well. They were fighting any attempt to “tie their hands” or restrict the types of settings to which families could be transferred. They simultaneously assured Councilmembers that they had no intention of moving any of the families to hotels (some of which had come under attack for having worse conditions than DC General) and were fighting for language changes to the bill to allow them to do just that.

What does the “D.C. General Resident Relocation Emergency Act of 2018” require?

1. The abatement, demolition and deconstruction work being done on the DC General campus must “meet all applicable environmental, health, and safety standards.”

We know that the Council was unable to do much more on this issue because of the alleged fiscal impact for actually stopping the work. As Councilmember Trayon White said: “Unfortunately, I was not able to include [language halting demolition] because of the fiscal impact.” During our advocacy for Councilmember Trayon White’s original bill, we heard broad support for delaying the Mayor’s plan to demolish the lead- and asbestos- filled “Building 9,” which is located right behind the family shelter, until the families left DC General. Many agree with us that any amount of risk to the health and safety of 289 homeless children is unacceptable. Almost every Council office we visited agreed that they had heard no good reason for moving forward with demolition and deconstruction while the families were still there, and no one, not the Mayor, nor any Council member, could articulate a downside to delaying the work until the families were gone. As Councilmember Robert White said, “the Bowser administration has “repeatedly misled the Council to move the demolition forward, even as the process departed from the original plan … they’ve prioritized arbitrary deadlines and talking points ahead of the needs of families.”

As we’ve maintained all along, existing “applicable” standards may be insufficient to protect the health and safety of DC General residents. For instance, DC is not operating under the most protective standard in regards to removing the risk of lead poisoning– the standard imposed on child-occupied buildings. Current law only requires using this higher standard for buildings within 100 feet of a child-occupied building, but the building being demolished is 250 feet away from the shelter. Even if DC voluntarily used the more protective standard, they would also need to use the newly proposed (but not yet in effect) Environmental Protection Agency regulations that were promulgated in response to updated scientific evidence on the amount of lead it takes to cause irreversible damage. In other words, there is a significant gap between the most protective standard to prevent lead poisoning and what DC intends to do—even if they follow the letter of the law. And that’s all assuming that DC doesn’t get sloppy, doesn’t make any mistakes, doesn’t inadequately supervise its contractor that is doing the work. Therefore, requiring them to follow the letter of the law is not reassuring, and may very well result in serious health consequences to children.

2. The Mayor must report on samples taken to determine the presence of lead and asbestos and whether any samples exceed permissible limits.

We welcome stronger oversight of the demolition and deconstruction process, but this part of the law feels woefully insufficient. First, this does not in any way require DC to take any samples—it just requires them to report on samples if they decide to take them. It also does not say what kind of samples (soil samples, air monitor results, etc.) and from where (directly around the site, on the playground, etc.).  We have just learned from Councilmember Nadeau’s office that the Mayor does not intend to take any samples for lead on the site because they do not believe that there is a risk of lead being transmitted 250 feet away. Fundamentally, though, what makes this section inadequate is that it will be too late for the children who live in the shelter if samples show contamination. As our colleague from Children’s Law Center stated:  “These reporting requirements aren’t effective. They’re being reported to the Council when the Council is not even in session… There’s nothing that triggers enforcement or any next step. It doesn’t even say what happens if they find [elevated levels of] lead and asbestos.”

3. The Mayor shall relocate DC General residents to appropriate permanent housing, DC General replacement shelters, or “any units under contract by the District specifically for the purpose of housing D.C. General Family Shelter residents.”

The original language introduced by Councilmember Trayon White did not include the option of “any units under contract by the District specifically for the purpose of housing D.C. General Family Shelter residents.” We had heard that the Mayor was advocating for the flexibility to place families anywhere in the system, including hotels. We opposed that, because we didn’t want the Mayor to force families into hotels that have worse conditions than DC General. (We supported language that would allow families to choose placement into hotels, however.)  Prior to the vote, Councilmember Anita Bonds stated that part of the reason she could support this bill is because she had been assured by the Mayor that families would not be transferred to hotels. Councilmember Nadeau stated that “…the goal is not to move [residents who are in DC General] into a secondary shelter, but to house them and house them for the long term.” We were pleasantly surprised to see that the plain language of this section does not allow transfers to hotels at all, despite strong pressure from the Administration. Hotels are not permanent housing, are not DC General replacement shelters, and are not contracted specifically “for the purpose of housing DC General Family Shelter residents.” (Of course, once again, there would be no point to this legislation if it included hotels, because it would be re-codifying what another law (the Homeless Services Reform Act) already allows the Mayor to do.)

4. The Mayor has to issue a weekly report starting July 27 (number of families left, number of exits by program, and number of families facing significant barriers to exit) and a final report after the closure on “the number of families that remained at closure that necessitated a swift exit and the status of those families.”

The weekly report will give the Council an opportunity to assess whether the Mayor is truly using a coordinated assessment system to place families in the right program for their needs, or is just putting every family in rapid re-housing. Current law does not authorize a “swift exit” for the families—the Mayor still must provide 15 days notice for transfers of any remaining families. Not only has the Mayor committed to families that they will not be displaced by closure, but this emergency law actually requires that each family be relocated to specific, limited settings. The report also provides an opportunity for the public and the Council to assess DC’s progress in placing DC General families into housing. It is concerning, for instance, that the first report indicates that more than half of the families (87) have not even begun their housing search (see Question 7d in DHS response, document link at bottom of post).

What’s next?

The legislation did not go as far as we or many on the Council wanted it to, but we made some progress by prohibiting forced transfers of DC General families to hotels and motels and requiring additional reporting to the Council. Of course, effective oversight relies on both the Mayor transmitting accurate and thorough information to the Council and on the Council being able to respond effectively when that information is troubling. Councilmember Nadeau has already begun to receive some reports and information, and she is sharing that with advocates. (This is how we have learned that the Ward 8 shelter may face another delay, possibly not being ready for families to move in until December 1. (Question 2, DGS response, document link below)) We, in turn, will share information and reports with families at DC General and with you (see documents at bottom of post).

As of now, we anticipate that demolition of Building 9 will occur the first week of August. The Council may have been unable to require the Mayor to stop the demolition and deconstruction of surrounding buildings while the families are still at DC General, but that doesn’t mean she has to move ahead. If you agree that the Mayor should wait until the families are gone to do that work, that any risk to homeless children is unacceptable, then you should let her know:

Sign the Petition!

Tweet: @MayorBowser

Email: eom@dc.gov

Phone: (202) 727-2643

 

Documents received:

7.13.18 DHS STFH Roundtable Follow-Up. FINAL

7.13.18 DC General Report. FINAL

7.13 DGS STFH Roundtable Follow-Up.FINAL

DC General 7-6-18 Environ Summary FINAL

This letter will be delivered to DC Council on Monday, July 9th. If your organization wishes to sign on to the letter, please email Amber Harding at amber@legalclinic.org by Monday, July 9th.

Dear Chairman Phil Mendelson,
Councilmember Anita Bonds,
Councilmember David Grosso,
Councilmember Elissa Silverman,
Councilmember Robert White, Jr.,
Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau,
Councilmember Jack Evans,
Councilmember Mary M. Cheh,
Councilmember Brandon T. Todd,
Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie,
Councilmember Charles Allen,
Councilmember Vincent C. Gray, and
Councilmember Trayon White, Sr.

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, urge you to vote “yes” on the D.C. General Resident Relocation Emergency Act of 2018 on July 10 to protect the health and safety of homeless children and families in the District of Columbia.

We support the closure of DC General, but only if it is done in a way that improves the conditions that families live in, protects the health and safety of residents, and ensures that there is enough shelter for all who need it. The newest iteration of the closure plan announced by Mayor Bowser in January of this year—to begin abatement and demolition of pre-1978 buildings surrounding the families while they still reside there and close DC General before all the replacement shelters are ready—does not center the needs of homeless families. Instead, it places the very families the closure of DC General is supposed to benefit at risk of harm from neurotoxins and from not having access to safe shelter or housing.

The amended plan to close DC General is not in the best interests of homeless families. We appreciate the efforts of Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau and Mary Cheh to continue active oversight of agencies under their purview, including requesting specific plans and updates on shelter capacity and construction of the new shelters. We believe that work is entirely consistent and complementary to the proposed emergency legislation—the entire Council must take decisive action now to prevent harm from occurring to families while you are on recess.

Objectives of the D.C. General Resident Relocation Emergency Act of 2018:

1. Halt any abatement, demolition or deconstruction activity until all of the families have exited the campus.

The abatement and demolition of lead- and asbestos-filled buildings, one a mere 250 feet away, poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the families and children who reside in DC General family shelter. We have received very little information publicly about how DC will demolish the building. They have confirmed, however, that they will not use the most protective standards for lead abatement because it is not an occupied building. The agency is operating under outdated lead hazard definition  standards that will not adequately identify hazards or protect the health and safety of workers or nearby homeless families. [1] Children and pregnant women may be at heightened risk of lead poisoning if that abatement and demolition is done to a nearby building while they still reside in the shelter, and adults are at risk of worsening health.  Demolishing this building with so many families living in such close proximity also risks exposure to asbestos, mold and other toxins, increased rodent infestation, and the worsening of respiratory disorders or acute attacks of asthma.

2. Ensure that families are relocated to safe, stable settings before the shelter is closed.

While uncertainty remains around the exact opening dates for some of the DC General replacement shelters, it is abundantly clear that only one shelter (Ward 4) will be open by the time the Administration intends to shutter DC General, no later than October 1.[2] There is much uncertainty about where the families living at DC General will go when the shelter closes and many of the hotels and motels currently used for family shelter are not safe and or habitable.  We support requiring that families be moved into either replacement shelters or appropriate permanent housing prior to the closure of the shelter.

We also request an oversight hearing in September to address the following concerns:

1. Whether abatement and demolition activities on the DC General campus are carried out to minimize the risk of harm to the women living at Harriet Tubman shelter and the men and women in the DC Jail. We recommend that DC must conduct abatement and demolition (after the families have left) by: 1) complying with the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, as recommended by the EPA in demolitions of pre-1978 buildings; 2) applying the new proposed EPA rule on lead-dust in order to both accurately identify potential hazards and achieve clearance of the site on a daily basis, 3) utilizing lead and asbestos air monitors to prevent permanent neurological harm and disability to residents and workers, and 4) complying with OSHA and TSCA requirements that protect the health of residents and workers, and other precautions as necessary.
2. Whether the Mayor’s plan to meet the emergency shelter needs of all eligible homeless families is sufficient. We recommend that the Council request a written plan that includes the projected need and the available number of contracted units of emergency family shelter or hotels, including locations, on a monthly basis from now until all the replacement shelters are projected to be online. We also recommend that the Council request monthly updates on this plan, including updates on the progress of DC General replacement shelter construction.

We thank you in advance for your rigorous oversight and willingness to take action to ensure that the well-being of DC families experiencing homelessness is centered in the closure of DC General.

Sincerely,

ACLU of the District of Columbia
A Community Voice
Amara Legal Center
Emily Benfer, Distinguished Visiting Scholar & Senior Fellow, Yale Law School, Solomon Center for Health Law & Policy*
Bread for the City
Break the Cycle
Carla Campbell, MD, MS, Las Cruces, NM
Yael Cannon, Visiting Associate Professor and Director, Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance Law Clinic*
Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN)
Children’s Law Center
Collective Action for Safe Spaces
DC Abortion Fund
DC Action for Children
DC Hunger Solutions
D.C. for Democracy
DC for Reasonable Development
DC Statehood Green Party
District Alliance for Safe Housing (DASH)
DV LEAP
Peter Edelman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Public Policy and Faculty Director, Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality*
Empower DC
Deborah Epstein, Professor, Co-Director, Georgetown University Law Center Domestic Violence Clinic*
Equal Rights Center
Fair Budget Coalition
The Father McKenna Center
Vicki Girard, Professor of Law, Legal Practice and Co-Director, Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance*
Good Faith Communities Coalition
Jews United for Justice
Lisa Kessler, Program Manager, Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance*
Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia
Legal Counsel for the Elderly
Eileen Moore, Associate Professor and Medical Director, Georgetown University School of Medicine HOYA Clinic and Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance*
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Housing Law Project
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP, EnviroHealthDoctor, LLC, Professor Emeritusof Pediatrics and of Environmental & Occupational Health, George Washington University*
People for Fairness Coalition
Positive Force DC
The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
Public Justice Center
Florence Wagman Roisman, William F. Harvey Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Professor, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
Stop Police Terror Project DC
Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
We Are Family Senior Outreach Network

*University affiliation listed for identification purpose only

[1] The EPA was under court order to update its lead abatement regulations to comport with medical science and public health guidelines. On June 22, the EPA issued proposed regulations, but they are not yet in effect and may not go into effect until Building 9 has already been demolished: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-strengthening-dust-lead-hazard-standards-reduce-exposures-children.

[2] The recent submission of contract modifications for the Wards 7 and 8 replacement shelters “extend[s] the Project’s substantial completion date to October 1, 2018.” The Administration testified that it can take a month or more after this date for the shelters to be ready for families to move into them. See http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/40579/CA22-0559-Introduction.pdf, http://lims.dccouncil.us/Download/40589/CA22-0569-Introduction.pdf.