.OTU0.OTU0

EDWIN L. STERNE M. B. SATTERFIELD CHAUIMAH CX£CUTIVE DIRECTOR AND S ECRETARY LESTER H . PERSELLS GEORGE S. CRAFT ASSOCIATE &:XECUTIVE DIRECTOR VICE CHAI .. MAN CARL TON GARRETT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE GILBERT H. BOGGS J. B. BLAYTON DIRECTOR OF HOUSING FRANK G. ETHERIDGE HOWARD OPENSHAW DIRECTOR OF REDEV£LOPMENT JACK F. GLENN 824 HURT IIUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 GEORGE R. SANDER TECHNICAL DIRECTOR JACKSON 3· 6074 November 15, 1968 Mr. Rodney M. Cook 34 - 10th St. N. E. Atlanta, Georgia . 30309 .Dear Rodney: Your letter of October 11 concerning low-rent public housing and the approaches which you feel the Housing Authority should take have led to a restudy of the current situation and the future course of action with respect to the development of high and low-density housing. The overall objective for housing in Atlanta is contained in the Community Improvement Program study as adopted by the Board of Aldermen. As restated by you, it is: "Place greater and intensified emphasis on creating higher density (high-rise} housing and preserving and promoting additional single family dvrellings; garden type apartments must be deemphasized in the future development and redevelopment of Atlanta. 11 Our studies indicate, and we believe this to be implicit in the CIP Study, that housing for higher income families should be largely in high-rise and single family structures, and that housing for low-income families should be largely in garden type apartments and high-rise for the elderly structures. Though we know of no study which indicates the extent of need and the degree of acceptability of high-rise structures by elderly low-income families in Atlanta, our experience, on the whole, has been favorable. The Housing Authority is, therefore, placing very considerable emphasis on this type of housing even though the Federal program is de-emphasizing elderly housing at the present. We referred your letter to the Regional Housing Assistance Office with a request for their comments. We are attaching a copy of their l etter and a .,, · copy of HUD Circular of 9/18/68 which also relates to these matters. Mr. Hanson I s letter clearly states the position of the ·Federal Agericy with respect to the low- income housing program. �-2Weha.ve also reviewed much of the literature concerning the development of planned communities and neighborhoods. In addition to this, we have discussed such developments with developers and planners of national and international stature. The general consensus is that a desirable neighborhood is one that contains a· reasonable cross-section of family sizes and income groups. Our observation is that in Atlanta most of the privately developed housing consists of one and two bedroom .units, except for higher-income single family residences. There is apparently a very great need for a large number of 3, 4 & 5 bedroom units for lower income families. We have attached a listing of the low-rent public housing projects in Atlanta, giving data on apartmem, by bedroom size. Please note that the older projects included no four or five bedroom apartments, and were heavily weighted toward efficiency and one bedroom units. The more recent developments have been increasingly weighted toward apartments with a larger number of bedrooms. · Your letter requested certain statistical information with respect to one and two person families. As of June 30, 1968, we were serving 2,345 one person families. Of these, 1,926 are elderly (62 years and over}, and the remainder consist of handicapped persons, widows or widowers whose spouses have deceased during their tenancy, and a very few single persons displaced by Urban Renewal or other governmental activities. In low-rent public housing are also 1,972 two person families, of which 202 are families having no minors and who are neither elderly nor disabled. We have included a listing showing the projects in which these two person families live. Because of the great demand for admission to low-rent public housing, which stays fully occupied with an average waiting list of approximately 1,500 applications, it is clear that the family sizes accommodated in low-rent housing is controlled by the size apartments which have been built, and, as mentioned above, the early program was heavily weighted toward the smaller size apartments. In the light of the foregoing, it would appear that the policies being followed by the Housing Authority in the construction of new low-rent public housing is the proper course of action, and, in the light of the current laws and regulations, achieves to the maximum degree possible the objectives which you advocate. With respect to the Bedford-Pine Project, GA. R-101, and the public hous:Lng presently planned for that project, we believe that fill consideration has been given to the objectives outlined in your letter and to the objectives of the project as agreed in meetings with the project residents. We enclose an �-3- analysis of one and two person families now living in the Bedford Pine Project area. Our past experience indicates that most of the 148 individuals will insist on being self-relocated for a variety of reasons such as contemplated marriage, illegal occupations, alcoholism. Most of the elderly and handicapped will probably move into public housing. Of the 223 two person families, most will be satisfactorily relocated by our staff, and it is our hope that most of those eligible for public housing will take advantage of their opportunity. It would appear that the public housing for the elderly planned for this area will acconunodate all those who are likely to move in, and will leave a small surplus. The Project Advisory Committee, with whom this matter has been discussed, feels strongly that the very limited land area available for residential reuse should be devoted to housing which will serve the people living in the area. The 353 apartments, of which 149 will be for elderzy, is designed to accomplish this. We are attaching a letter from the Project Advisory Committee stating their feelings in this matter. We reconunend and urge that these 353 apartments be constructed in the apartment sizes presently planned. · The constructive approach which you are taking to this matter is greatly appreciated, and we appreciate also the thoughtful and constructive policies which you and the Policy Committee present for the guidance of the Urban Renewal program. Sincerely yaurs, ,/J ~ r. lLd' _ // __.,,,,- ,/ v ~ · MBS/IBP:sd CC: AHA Board Members UR Policy Committee Hembers _ /, - L. •" 1 \.;L.J.;.:cz:z,-,~ /4-e-f.--#U 1;· M. B. Satterfield Executive Director ~ Enclosures / · �