.MTY4.MTY4

THE HOUSING CODE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND PRESENT SITUATION (PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION) Prepared by: Sta ff Pl ann i ng De partment Decembe r 2 0 , 1968 �Following is a brief outline of what has happened thus far rn the development process of the Housing Code Comp Iiance Program: I. The Housing Code Compliance Program, as a requirement of the Workable Program, was first developed in Atlanta in 1963 and approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen before submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2. The Housing Code Compliance· Program of 1963 was based on the conditions The initial program, which was designed to cover the period from 1963 through 1968, has been amended at least twice by the Housing Code Division of the Building Inspector's Office to accommodate changing conditions. of housing as setforth in the United States Census of Housing, 1960. 3. The 1963 Housing Code Compliance Program, designed to cover a fiv~-year p~riod, has been completed. 4. In retrospect, the initial Housing Code Comp I iance Program contained deficiencies, primarily because it represented a first attempt at developing and implementing such a program; secondly, it was based on unreliable secondary information (U. S. Census data); and thirdly, the absence of management information and control systems has inhibited the program's effectiveness. 5. In submitting the Workable Program for 1968, the city realized a new Housing Code Comp Iiance Program wou Id have to be developed. The Workable Program text conceded this necessity. 6. In October, 1968, the Department of Housing c:ind Urban Development recertified the city's Workable Program. However, th is recertification expires October I, 1969, and, in its letter of review comments, HUD said it wou Id expect the city to submit a new Housing Code Compliance Program with the submission of the 1969 Workable Program. HUD also made comments relative to the administration and enforcement of the Housing Code Compliance Program. 7. Since the summer of 1968, the Planning Department, the Housing Code Division of the Building Inspector's Office and the Mayor's Office have worked toward developing a new Housing Code Comp Iiance Program. The new program is based on the 1965 city-wide housing conditions survey undertaken as part of the Community Improve me nt Program. The priority areas for conce ntrated inspe ctions in the new program coincide with the priority areas e stablished in the Community Improvement Program. 8. The approach of the new program has cre ated problems. The Housing Code Division points out that th e Community Improveme nt Program priorities, if adopte d will se nd inspection teams bac k into are a s in which inspec tions have just bee n made . The Planning De partme nt points out th e absence of any yardstic k with which to me a sure qualitative levels of accompli shme nt in va rious are as inspec ted . �-2- 9. The present dilemma is that an acceptable new Housing Code Compliance Program must be developed and adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen prerequisite to recertification of the city•s 1969 Workable Program. At question is the desirability of developing a new Housing Code Compliance Program and, thereby, continuing the city•s Workable Program. Although this question may appear facetious, it is not intended to be. Should the city•s Workable Program be continued? Should a new Housing Code Compliance Program be developed? If the decision is to continue the Workable Program and to create a new Housing Code Comp Iiance Program, · certain problems must be dealt with: I. Classification of substandard dwelling units must be standardized and accepted by all agencies invloved with the program, including local, state, and federal governmental agencies. Examples of terms that must have standardized and acceptable definitions are: structure, housing unit, standard, and substandard, and these classifications of substandard: minor deterioration, major deterioration, and dilapidated. Standardizing these terms will eliminate conflict and misunderstanding among the Housing Code Division, the Building Inspector's Office, the Planning Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Atlanta Housing Authority, and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. 2. Up-to-date, comprehensive data on the conditions of structures througho.ut. the . __ _ _ city must be obtained. This information must adequately define current housing conditions. 3. A qualitative means of measuring the effectiveness of the Housing Code Compliance Program must be devised. Currently, after the Housing Code Inspectors have allegedly completed work in a neighborhood, there is no way to judge improved housing conditions compared to the original condition of housing. A 11 before-and-af ter 11 comparison needs to be made in each neighborhood. 4. Priority determinations concerning areas to be inspected must be made, and must complement and support other pub Iic programs in the area. Possible approaches to the above problems are setforth below. Decisions in each area must be made in order to develop the new H_o using Code Comp I iance Program: Standardization of terms and definitions. This can be achieved through close I. cooperation among the indivirluals and groups involved. A series of meetings involving the Housing Code Division, the Building Inspector's Office, the Plannirg Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Atlanta Housing Authority should be established in which terminology is standardized, defined, and agreed upon. A means of expediting the meetings is for one group, probably the Planning Department, to work up a series of definitions a nd presenf· them to the collected departments and agencies . Additions , corrections, and deletions to these definitions can be discussed at the me eting, after which, the Planning Depa rtm e nt can revise the de fini t ions according to the suggestions offere d . A two to three week fime limit should be se t fo r acc omplish ing this work task . �-3The Planning Department 1s willing to prepare the initial draft to present to the assemblage. 2. Up-to-date, comprehensive data on the conditions of structures throughout the city. This data is absolutely essential and can best be obtained by conducting a city-wide survey of housing conditions along the line of the 1965 survey conducted by the 1965 Community Improvement Program. This survey must be undertaken because (I) U. S. Census of Housing -data on building conditions wi II no longer be available, and (2) the 1965 CIP field survey information has not been kept current. Procedures for undertaking a new survey are readily available, but a problem exists in selecting personnel to carry out the survey. There are three separate possibilities for selecting personnel: a. Use college students as was done in the 1965 Cl P survey. b. Use the Housirg Code Compliance Program inspectors themselves. c. Use a combination of the first two. The Planning Department feels that the second alternative, using inspectors to make the survey, is best because of the lack of avai Iable college students at th is time of year, and further because the inspectors are most familiar with the city and with building conditions. Once the data is gathered, keeping it up-to-date and usable is a related problem. The Data Processing Division of the . city can be of value in solving this problem, if this ite m is given a higher priority than in the past. The information can be kept on file in the computer and updated periodically. Until this is accomplished, it will be necessary for the city to undertake periodic city-wide surveys of building conditions. 3. Establishing This may be the Systems Division area. A system a qualita t ive me ans of measuring the effective ness of the program. most difficult of th e probl e ms to overcome . Th e Manage me nt and of the Finance Department can possibly be of assistance in this should be devised to determine: a. the effectivene ss of the inspe ctions and b. the ove ral I achi e ve me nts of th e program. To devise such a system, th e successes mu st be quantified so that they can be measure d in some meaningful manne r . At prese nt, th e only pe opl e who profess to und e rsta nd th e syste m in use are Housing Code Divisi on pe rsonne l . An e ffi c ien t system w i 11 de term ine program effec tivene ss, personne I performance , a nd mana ge men t needs. �-44. Determining priorities. several ways: Areas to receive priority can be determined in a. The areas with the most substandard dwelling units, or with the highest percentage of substandard units, can be inspected first. 6. The areas without appreciable blight or deterioration, but which are located on the edge of slum areas can be inspected first, hoping to contain the blight. c. A combination of the first two: inspecting, at the same time, the city's worst slums and the fringe areas around them, which are presently standard. d. Follow the guidelines as used in the Community Improvement Program, taking into account the fol lowing factors: (I) Social Implications - areas in which programs for improvement are presently needed to supplement social action agency programs. (2) Resource Areas - where better utilization of land might relieve present pressure for land resou rces. (3) Relationship to Public Programs - where the potential extended public benefits from these programs may be · lost if not early housing rehabilitation action is taken. (4) Planning Objectives - where the existing pattern of development is such that, without early action, implementation of housing recommendations at a later date would be difficu It or impossible. (5) Areas Characte r ized by Change - where early action is needed to stabilize sound housing which may suffer rapid deterioration without such action. There are, perhaps, other alternatives for devising priorities which have additional merit, but of the alternatives listed, the Planning Department feels that the fourth (following CIP guidelines) is preferable . �