You asked how many units of federally- and state-financed housing in Connecticut have been lost over time and what happened to the displaced residents. You also asked if Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York subsidize rents in their state-financed low- and moderate-income housing to allow for maintenance and improvements.

Since 1995, the state has lost 3,942 units of federally-financed public housing to demolition and other activities. It lost 1,185 units of state-financed housing since 1988, which includes low- and moderate-income housing for families and elderly and disabled people.

Both federal and state laws require people displaced due to certain government authorized activity, such as housing project demolition, to receive relocation assistance. Additionally, state law generally prohibits housing authorities that received state-financing from conveying or destroying housing projects, if doing so would remove the project from the low- or moderate-income rental market. But the law allows exceptions under certain circumstances. In such cases when a housing authority disposes of a project, it must either relocate tenants to comparable accommodations or provide a rental voucher and relocation assistance. Certain projects are exempted from this law, including in Bridgeport, or have been allowed exceptions under separate legislation, which is the case in New Britain.

The three other states with state-financed public housing, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York, provide operating subsidies to the housing projects, reportedly allowing rents to stay low and the units to be more properly maintained. Connecticut provided the initial financing for the development of its state-financed housing projects (some of the housing for Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines returning from World War II), but has not since provided rent subsidies that provide funding to allow for maintenance and improvements.

In 2003, the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) transferred the state-financed housing portfolio to the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA), and CHFA gave $ 85 million to the state in return. The portfolio consists of over 17,000 units, including moderate-income rental, elderly, and congregate housing projects. Many of these developments are in desperate need of proper maintenance and capital improvements, according to past and recent public hearing testimony before the Housing Committee. (The Committee is currently considering—as of February 27, 2007—several bills to provide funding for emergency repairs, maintenance, and capital improvements of these housing projects. )

Table 1 below lists federally-financed units lost since 1995. It also lists the fiscal year an action took place, the project location (housing authority), the actions that resulted in a loss for federal units, and the number of units lost (some have been approved, but not yet acted on and thus have “0” listed for number of units lost). The actions included applications for: de minimis (minor) construction, demolition, demolition/disposition, disposition, eminent domain, HOPE VI Revitalization (a federal program that began in 1993 to provide funding to transform distressed public housing projects), mandatory and required conversion.

The bulk of the units were in Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven.

Table 1: Lost Federal Units

Source: Connecticut Housing Finance Authority

More information about Hope VI is available at the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) website: http: //www. hud. gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/.

“Mandatory Conversion” is the process of moving people from public housing to the private market by giving them Section 8 vouchers. If it costs less to give the residents a Section 8 voucher than to maintain the low rent public housing building, the building is shut down and the residents are provided Section 8, according to HUD.

Table 2 below lists the location, project name, number of units, and the date of loss of state-financed housing units. These numbers do not include all of the units that housing authorities have had to take out of use because they are uninhabitable due to lack of funding for repairs.

Table 2: State-Financed Units Lost

Source: Department of Economic and Community Development

However, according to DECD, these numbers could be misleading, because four of the properties were not lost to the “affordable” inventory, as they were never owned by a local housing authority. Additionally, the legislature authorized many of the actions that eliminated units.

Both the federal and state Uniform Relocation Assistance acts (42 U. S. C. § 4601 et seq. and CGS § 8-266 et seq. , respectively) require governments to provide advisory services and financial assistance to individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations displaced by

municipal, state, or federal governmental programs and projects (such as the redevelopment of a housing project). If the municipal or state activity is federally-funded, the federal law applies.

In general, the law (CGS § 8-64a) prohibits housing authorities that receive or have received any state financial assistance from disposing of a housing project or any part of it if doing so would cause the project or any part of it to be unavailable for use as low- or moderate-income rental housing.

However, the DECD commissioner may grant written approval for the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction of a housing project, after a public hearing and making certain findings. The commissioner may do so, after finding:

1. the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction is in the best interest of the state and the municipality where the project is located;

2. an adequate supply of low- or moderate-income rental housing exists in the municipality where it is located;

3. the housing authority has developed a plan for the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction of the project in consultation with the project's residents and municipal representatives and has provided the residents and representatives a chance to participate in the plan; and

4. any person who is displaced as a result of the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction will be relocated to a comparable public or subsidized housing unit in the same municipality or will receive a tenant-based rental subsidy and relocation assistance.

The commissioner must give the affected residents written notice of the public hearing by first class mail at least 90 days before the hearing. The law requires the commissioner to consider the extent to which the housing units which are to be sold, leased, transferred, or destroyed will be replaced. The replacements can be newly constructed housing, rehabilitation of housing which is abandoned or has been vacant for at least one year; or new federal, state, or local tenant-based or project-based rental subsidies. The commissioner's written approval must contain a statement of facts supporting his or her findings.

The law does not apply to the sale, lease, transfer, or destruction of a housing project under contract terms housing authorities entered into before June 3, 1988. It also exempts certain public housing projects from requirements regarding the disposal of the projects. The projects are:

1. Phase I of Father Panik Village, Pequonock Gardens Project, and Evergreen Apartments in Bridgeport;

2. Elm Haven and Quinnipiac Terrace/Riverview in New Haven;

3. Dutch Point in Hartford;

4. Southfield Village in Stamford; and

5. Fairfield Court in Stamford upon approval by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of its revitalization application and plan, under the federal HOPE VI Revitalization Program (provided the approved plan includes at least one-for-one replacement of low- and moderate-income units) (CGS § 8-64a).

In March 2004, the Attorney General's office sent a letter to DECD stating that the requirements under 8-64a apply to a housing project that has received federal funding, but no state funding, if the housing authority operating the project has received any state financial assistance.

PA 03-6, June 30 Special Session, allowed the city of New Britain and its housing authority to redevelop certain state-financed moderate-income rental housing properties without replacing all of the units lost. But it required the city to ensure the redevelopment process resulted in the number of units mandated under the act (635), and that those units met the act's various affordability requirements. The act also allowed New Britain's housing authority to sell, lease, or transfer the properties to the city of New Britain or a successor entity, authorizing a portion of the property to be used for non-housing uses. A CHFA subsidiary obtained title to all four properties in February 2004 and PA 04-2, May Special Session, codified CHFA's responsibilities for the properties' redevelopment, including meeting the unit replacement and affordability requirements of PA 03-6, JSS.

More information is available in OLR Report 2007-R-0080, which is available at: http: //search. cga. state. ct. us/dl2007/rpt/doc/2007-R-0080. doc or see the copy we attached.

Background. The state created state-financed low- and moderate-income projects with the plan that the units would generate enough revenue from rents to properly maintain them, but overtime the low rents housing authorities have had to charge to keep the units affordable for very low-income families have made this task impossible, causing many units and projects to be in desperate need of repair, according, most recently, to testimony from various housing authorities and tenants at a February 23, 2007 Housing Committee public hearing.