.NzU3MA.NzU3MA

HOUSING RF.'.SOURC:S S COYJ!'~ITTEE Topics f or discussion with the 1ayor May 8, 1967 Surmnary of April 20, Housing Resource s Committee report shows: 1. Estimate when avai l able No. Units 1967 1968 1969 Firm 3556 (1312) (1928) (316) Probable 3553 (1681) (672 ) Category 1970 1971 (500) (70'J ) (500) ( 700 ) - -7109 I n Sight (1312) Total Being Considered 4569 Doubtful 3088 (3609 ) (988) 14, 766 units Total Proposed Of the 71 proposals cont ained i n this report, 19 of the best ones and those which unti l recently were considere d among the most promising (comprising 6,504 units) have ei ther been turned down or are i n jeopardy . The princ i pal reasons fo r this, toge tr..er wi tb some suggestions to iJ prove the situation 1 Kere inc l uded in l etter of April 12 , t o the Chai rman of t he Housing Resources Committee. The proble~ areas of greatest concern are indicated i n the accompani ng l ist. 2. 2ffects of the problem encountered with the NAACP and the I nter- gr oup Relations Sect ion of HUD i s beginr.ing to be fe l t loc ally i n FctA also. It is apparent that the position t aken by the I nter-group Relations Section of ?.U D has been brewing for some time and now has the support ·of HUD LTJ. ivas hingt o • Thus far we have depended primarily on private developers to c ome in with proposed sites. Unless the current situation can be materially i mproved s oon, it may behoove the City t o go into t he business of sys temicall y cicte r mining sites for low cost housing and acquiring the land needed for such use, by condemnation if necessary, in much the sar1e manner as is dor.e by the Scnool Board f or needed school .sites. Of t he 9800 unit goal f or t he first t wo yenrs of the low co st housing progrc.. , alloc ation breakclmm specif i ed by the ifayor in the Housine Conf'er e ice

.re as f oll01-rs 

- -

~- - �- 2 - Public Housing 57% C: 5586 uni t s ( 5640 alloc ated) Private Develo)ers (conventio al 30~~ = 2940 units 22ld(3) Non- prof it 13% = 1274 unit s Total 9800 It seems that t he 22 l d(3), co- op i s the most popular approach t o the nonpr ofit development and is best for bot h t he City and the purchaser- occ upant . The prospect i ve home owner gets more for his money in t hi s t ype of home ownershi p t han in any other manner thus far propose d. The failur e and f oreclos i ng r ate nat i onal ly on the s e developments i s negligi bl e . Thi s t ype development s· _o uld be abl e t o ac count for a gr eater proporti onate share of the over al l r e~ui r ement t han t he 13% previ ousl y i ndic ated; i t should be widel y encouraged . 4. .An article by Alex Coffin in the Atlanta Constitut i on, April 17, s tat ed t hat 25% of Atlant a is in vac ant lot s . I f thi s be t r ue, our most available resource f or l ow- cost housing, both publ i c and pr ivate , i s on s catter e d sites. I nci dentall y such pro cedure woul d create a mi nimu."';;. of nei ghbor:0.ood ob j ecti on and polit ical di f f i culty. Bot h privat e devel opers and the Housing Aut hority s hould be calle d upon to pursue this principl e t o t he maximum. 5. The Housing Code i nspections on Boul evard have produced offers f or sale by ovrriers of at l e ast 103 units . 6. No adciiti onal sites under t he Public Housi ng le asing progr am have been &cc_t.:.ir ed since previous ousi ng Resources Cornin.i t t ee report of Fcbru.s.ry 20 . It appears that most of the time of the fousing Authority repr esentative assigned to leasing is t aken up in processing indivi dual t enm~t l eases for occupancy of the l eased units rather t har1 devot ing t he mai n effort t o sec~ring leases fo r adoitional units. The leasing of additional project s for Public Housing should be pushed. --- ------ --

- --- - - - -

�- 3 - 7. Al though rehabilitation of sub - s tandard dwe l l ing units does not pro - vide additional hous i nb (and such is not i nclude d in Housing Resources Conmittee tabulation t otal s o_ prospe ctive housing uni ts ) , still t his feature adas materially t o the availabl e reso urce s of st an dard housing and tends to reduce t he r equirement for new hous i ng . Consequent l y it i s des i rabl e for the Housing Res ources Cammi t t ee to ha•ve cur rent inf or mation on t he extent of rehabi litation and princ i pal areas involve d . Thi s i nform&tion is cont ai ned i n r outi ne monthl y report s of ac t iviti es of the Housing Co de Di vision and has been r eques ted several times , but has not been r ece i ve d since J anuar y and only par tial i nformation was provided for Decembe r and Janu.s.ry . There appears t o be no l ogical r e as on why c cp i e s of the Housing Code Di vision ' s mont hl y rep orts s hould not be r;}t e,, ':'!;' (11) f tti made avai l able t o t he Hous ing Resources Commi ttee. 8. Although s ome of the di ff ic ul ties confront ing t he low- cost hous i ng progr am may be beyond t he abili t y of the Ci ty, however t he odcome of zoni ng petit i on numbe r Z-67-33G (deni al of r ezoni ng f rom M-1 t o A-1) i s t ypic al of situati ons over which the City doe s have control and 1-1her e r ez oning may have to be accomplished i n order to provide ample locations f or deve l opment of low- cost housi ng . 9. There are s t ill 157 singl e family l ots in t he Thomasville Urb2n Renewal Pro j ect which have not been sol d f or 221 de ve l opment.

t--1ir1imum

. h ave b een es t abl_is . h.e d on a 11 of t hes e 7_ov~ s, ranging . " &900 ~vO prices 1rom ~ !;:.2 100 eacn . In order to enc ourage development of t hese lots, r eco,1i:- end t:i.at pr ice reductions be made for multipl e pur chases, as shown on the attached card and that publicity be gi ven to that effe ct. our FHA consultant, conc urs wi th this principl e . ~ ivJ:r. Gate s, The s ugge s ted r educt i on ~as been shown to a r eputabl e and experienced developer who agree s t hat it is practical and should result i n de vel opment of these lots. • 1-,J to~r/ �- 4 - 10. In order to keep the interest and confidence of prospecti ve developers in the low- cost housing field, suge;est t hat a confe r ence be c a lled by the I·' ayor with the Board of Alder:nen and t hat some of the most interested lowcost housing prrn oters and developers be invited to present their views and comments on the prograin . such an opportunity. Several have indicated that they ,·1 ould welc ome Suc h meeting might produce s ome he l pful ideas . In any event it would provide an opportunity fo r them to stat e their side of the problem and should s e rve to cle a r tie currently conf used at~nosphere . Also suggest that the Pr ess be i nvited to such a meeting . Encls: Sug e;ested p rice r educ tions on Thorr.e.sville lots I1emo d ated April 21, 1967 �