3/21/19 Update: Read about the meeting here: https://saheron.com/cops-metro-to-city-council-on-displacement-we-dont-want-a-study-we-want-action/
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
CC: City Manager; Deputy City Manager; Neighborhood and Housing Services Department; Members of the San Antonio Housing Commission
FROM: Members of the San Antonio Housing Oversight Coalition (SAHOC), Tier One Neighborhood Coalition Steering Committee, and Vecinos de Mission Trails
DATE: March 18, 2019
RE: Risk Mitigation Policy
As the Mayor and members of the City Council prepare to approve the Risk Mitigation Policy drafted by the Neighborhood Housing Services Department, we believe it is crucial to address outstanding issues with the policy as written. In assessing this policy, our goal has been to uphold the recommendations outlined by the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force. As community members and advocates, we share the belief that this policy misses critical opportunities that must be taken in order to develop the most robust protections for displaced residents.
The members of SAHOC would like to share the following concerns and propose modifications to the proposed policy before final approval.
- The policy must require property owners to partner with the City to assist tenants.When property owners plan to issue notices to vacate due to redevelopment or code enforcement changes, the current policy only strongly encouragesbut does not require them to participate in the Residential Relocation Assistance Program (RRAP). San Antonio has the authority to require a developer to participate in a tenant relocation assistance program when a property owner needs the city’s assistance or permission for some aspect of their project, such as a zoning change or permit from the city (See Appendix A for details). The City should take advantage of this power in order to protect its most vulnerable residents.
- Developers should be required to contribute to a tenant relocation fund. The current policy is funded only by money from the City, which ignores the private actors who are responsible for the displacement being mitigated through these policies. The City should determine (through a nexus study) an appropriate fee which developers should be required to contribute to a tenant relocation fund. (See Appendix B for more details).
- The tenant notification requirements should be made stronger.As written in the current version of the policy, the requirements for notifying tenants who will be displaced are inadequate to ensure that these residents are protected. We believe the severe shortage in affordable housing units available in San Antonio warrants an increase in the number of days tenants should receive prior notice to vacate. For recommendations on how these requirements should be strengthened, please see Appendix C.
- Inconsistencies with the Texas Property Code must be clarified and addressed.The City’s proposed relocation assistance for displacement due to code enforcement actions does not meet the requirements of Section 21.046 of the Texas Property Code. This needs to be cleared up before the policy should be approved.Please see Appendix D for an explanation of the inconsistencies.
- The policy fails to adequately reflect the real-life experiences of displaced individuals and families. In a letter addressed to Veronica Soto and copied to members of the council on February 12th, SAHOC requested COSA to collaborate closely with the tenants of Soap Works & Towne Center, as they are currently experiencing displacement and could offer valuable information that would improve the development and implementation of this policy. A detailed recommendation regarding a process for authentic citizen participation was offered and was disregarded by NHSD staff. Failure to seek guidance from those who are directly being affected will likely result in a process that is ineffective and burdensome to clients.
- The requirements of tenants to access the funds are burdensome and bureaucratic and should be revised. Every effort should be made to create requirements that are reasonable and accessible for those experiencing hardship. For example, the requirement to obtain a written letter from an employer stating a change in work hours or wage is unreasonable. In a city where hourly, temporary, seasonal, part-time work is prevalent, it is unlikely that employers will take the time to issue letters to employees when their wages are affected in a timely manner. Placing this bureaucratic obstacle on tenants is unacceptable. Additionally, the criteria outlined is confusing because it is unclear whether applicants must provide all criteria listed or just one of several listed. Clarification in this section is seriously warranted.
- More than $1 million must be allocated to assist families with relocation and we ask the City to increase this amount in next year’s budget. It is inexcusable that our City continues to offer millions of dollars in incentives to developers for economic development and to develop housing that is beyond 60% AMI, while offering a paltry $1 million to assist approximately 200 families who will be displaced by similar actions. In short, it appears that millions support developers and pennies support the most vulnerable in our community. In addition to increasing the amount of money in this fund, we believe that property owners should also contribute to assist residents.
- The Risk Mitigation Policy has no connection to the larger framework for preventing displacement.Preventing displacement was a critical piece of the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force recommendations, and the creation of this larger anti-displacement strategy is an urgent need that must be prioritized in the NHSD’s three-year business plan.
Finally, we continue to have concerns about the many parallel processes within the City related to housing. The City urgently needs a coordinated housing system, with a dedicated housing executive within the City Manager’s office whose work is to align the housing-related efforts pursued by multiple City departments and to ensure the City is not creating instances of displacement that it is then attempting to mitigate. We understand that the executive position will be evaluated at the mid-year and a decision will be made by the City Manager at that time. We strongly encourage the City to create this position and hire someone with experience and expertise in affordable housing to fill it as soon as possible.
We believe that San Antonio is currently experiencing a housing crisis, and this crisis is disproportionately impacting the city’s most vulnerable residents. Many of these are families who have shaped this city for generations, giving San Antonio its vibrant diversity and cultural wealth. Many also work the low-wage jobs that keep the city functioning day to day, making their protection essential to any economic prosperity. Therefore, we recommend immediateimplementation of financial assistance to support families who are currently being displaced.
However, we are petitioning COSA to seriously consider the concerns outlined in this letter during the implementation process. In the following Appendices, we have attached more detailed recommendations that COSA staff can use to modify the current policy. We hope members of the City Council, the Housing Commission and COSA staff will adhere to this urgent request.
San Antonio families deserve better.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Acosta (D8), Rich Acosta (D8), Amelia Adams (D1), Monica Cruz (D10), Paul DeManche (D1), Rebecca Flores (D5), Maureen Galindo (D1), Jessica O. Guerrero (D3), Sofia Lopez (D1), Carol Rodriguez (D3), Cynthia Spielman (D1)
About SAHOC: The San Antonio Housing Oversight Coalition (SAHOC) is a group of concerned residents and organizations. Informed by our relationships with homeowners and renters, we advocate for the implementation of affordable housing policy as outlined in the Mayor’s Housing Policy Task Force report and adopted by City Council. We work to ensure all San Antonians can live in affordable housing in neighborhoods of their choice and to hold city leaders accountable to the vision of a more equitable San Antonio.
Appendix A: Instituting a requirement for property owners to participate in Resident Relocation Assistance
Where the City has the power to require property owners to participate in the tenant relocation assistance program, it should require their participation. Asking property owners to opt in is not sufficient and leaves the RRAP policy without any teeth.
San Antonio has the authority to require a developer to participate in a tenant relocation assistance program when a property owner needs the city’s assistance or permission for some aspect of their project, such as a zoning change or permit from the city.
In many other cities, property owners are required to participate in a relocation assistance program when the owner requests a zoning change or variance or applies for a permit for the demolition or major alteration of a multi-family building. The City’s awarding of subsidies (such as Tax Increment Financing funds) or tax abatements (such as the CCHIP abatements) could also be a trigger for mandatory compliance with the City’s tenant relocation policy.
For example, in the City of Austin’s tenant relocation policy, the participation requirement is triggered by:
- a request for the demolition or partial demolition of a multifamily building consisting of 5 or more occupied units, or;
- a request for approval of a site plan or change of use permit for an existing mobile home park; or
- a request to rezone a property within the Mobile Home Residence (MH) District designation that contains an existing mobile home park.
As it stands, the city’s proposed policy is banking on the property owner opting to participate in the program. While some developers may do this, others will surely not. For their tenants, this could be the difference between relocating to a safe suitable home and being unable to do so.As written, the burden falls on the tenant to navigate the stressful process of securing adequate housing for themselves and their family members, especially if they are unaware of the services the city has to offer.
Appendix B: Developers and property owners should contribute to a relocation fund.
The City should not be left holding the bill for the entire Resident Relocation Assistance program. We should be requiring a property owner who is displacing their residents to contribute to these relocation programs financially – especially when the displacement is a result of a demolition or rehabilitation.
The common response to this is to say that the State of Texas forbids cities from using “linkage fees,” but in fact, where a rational nexus can be demonstrated between a developers actions and the impacts that result from those actions, a city may require financial contribution from the developer. This requires a nexus study to be done in order to determine the amount of this fee, which must be consistently calculated and uniformly applied, but would vary based on the specific factors involved in the displacement event.
The city of Austin released a Request for Proposals for a nexus/impact study, which will establish a reasonable fee that will be charged by the city. In Austin, this study is intended to enable the collection of a fee to fund affordable housing in the city. Therefore, the study will determine if a relationship exists between redevelopment and the need for affordable housing to avoid displacement of residents. The tasks of the study also take into account the costs to the City associated with services provided to displaced renters.
San Antonio should engage in a similar study in order to establish a fee to fund tenant relocation.
Appendix C: How the RRAP Tenant Notification Requirements can be strengthened.
The notification requirements for those property owners who do decide to “partner with the city” when displacing tenants are not sufficiently robust. While it is commendable and important that the City requires tenant notices must be in both English and Spanish, what the policy means by “provide written notice” is not elaborated. The following are examples of specific materials and requirements that would be valuable for the City to require of any property owner.
- The City should provide a template for the tenant notification letter (including other information for tenants) that should be used by property owners when informing their tenants or mobile home residents.
- The City should provide a printable sign that should be displayed on the property to notify residents, for both multifamily tenants and mobile home residents.
- There should be a requirement that the letter include information about how to petition to allow your child to remain in the same school after you are relocated.
- The policy should require that all notifications be delivered directly to the tenant by the property owner or by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested.
- The property owner should be required to submit a rent roll that includes information about the number of tenants that would be displaced, the names and number of people on each lease, languages spoken, and number of bedrooms in each impacted unit
Other cities also allow longer minimum time frames for residents to vacate their homes. For example, Austin’s policy allows 180 days for multi-family tenants and 270 days for mobile home residents (compared to San Antonio’s 90/180 guideline).At several of the displacement community meetings SAHOC members attended, the minimum notification period recommended was 120 days for multifamily developments and more for mobile home parks. The current policy only requires 90 days for multifamily developments and 180 days for mobile home parks. We recommend the notification be increased to 120 days and 180 days, respectively. We believe the severe shortage in affordable housing units available in San Antonio warrants an increase in the number of days tenants should receive prior notice to vacate. We believe there should be other requirements that property owners should adhere to that will ensure residents receive proper assistance.
Additionally, when developers fail to comply with the notice requirements in cities like Austin, they risk a $500 fine. However, because San Antonio’s policy is opt-in for developers, there is no way to force them to abide by these essential notice requirements, let alone fine them if they don’t.
Appendix D:Inconsistency regarding residents displaced by city code enforcement actions
The City’s proposed relocation assistance for displacement due to code enforcement actions does not meet the requirements of Section 21.046 of the Texas Property Code. While Section C.ii of the proposed Risk Mitigation Policy states that the City’s policy doesn’t apply to households that qualify for relocation assistance under federal or state law, the policy also clearly states that it covers displacement from code enforcement.
Section 21.046 requires that the city provide relocation assistance to residents who are displaced as a result of code enforcement actions—and that the assistance be compatible with the assistance required under the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). The URA’s relocation assistance requirements are much stronger and more comprehensive than those under RRAP. For example, under the URA for displaced tenants, a city must cover the rent for a comparable dwelling unit for up to 42 months and pay for the difference (between the tenant’s original rent and the new rent), along with moving costs, etc. of up $7,200. There is also a robust appeals process.
State law requires each city to adopt rules governing assistance of displaced residents, and displacement occurring as a result of City code enforcement action is covered in San Antonio’s most recent revised URA Relocation Policy and Procedures. However, the requirements in this policy are inconsistent with those outlined in the new Risk Mitigation Policy, which also covers code enforcement actions.
Between these various policies and regulations, there is considerable confusion that needs to be checked and cleared up before the Risk Mitigation Policy can be approved. Otherwise, the Policy will not be consistent with existing state regulations.