1974-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING RE~ RUGBY ROAD DEAL OF TIME HAS BEEN SPENT AND FUNDS HAVE BEEN EXPENDED UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THat HUD WAS DEALING IN GOOD FAITH. ON JUNE 25, 1974 THE CHARLOTTESVILLE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OPENED BIDS ON THE 105 UNITS FOR THE ELDERLY. DUE TO PROCRASTINAT;ION BY HUD OFFICIALS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS HAD TO EXTEND THE BID CONTRACT DATE TWICE AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF $51,411,00. RECENTLY HUD HAS STATED THAT NO FEDERAL FUNDS COULD BE USED FOR THE PROJECT (ON THE SO-CALLED ~' PROTOTYPE''COST) IN EXCESS OF AN AVERAGE OF $16,300.00. AFTER A MAXIMUM EFFORT TO PERSUADE HUD OFFICIALS TO RAISE THE FIGURE TO $23,000.00 (ACTUAL COST OF THE UNITS AS PER THE BID OF R. E. LEE & SON, INC.) FAILED THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FACED A DEFICIT OF APPROXIMATELY $850,000.00 WITH NO SOURCE FROM WHICH TO OBTAIN THE FUNDS. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT DESPITE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN PROVIDING FOR THIS PROGRAM AND FUNDS TO IMPLEI~ENT IT THE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT PLAN TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE UNITS CAN BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED WITH HUD'S MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS AND THE AFOREMENTIONED PROTOTYPE COST FIGURE ($16,300.00) AND THIS MUST BE PERFECTLY OBVIOUS TO THE HUD OFFICIALS. FURTHERMORE, THE SAME THING IS TRUE WITH REGARD TO PROJECTS IN NORFOLK, RICHMOND, AND LYNCHBURG. NOT ONLY DOES THIS CONSTITUTE UNFAIRNESS AND DECEPTION, AND PERHAPS FRAUD, ON THE PART OF HUD IN MY OPINION BUT IT DEMONSTRATES VERY CLEARLY THE FACT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS NEVER INTENDED TO CARRY OUT EVEN THE MINIMAL HOUSING PROGRAM IT ADVOCATED. I WILL REQUEST OUR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS AND OUR SENATORS TO INVESTIGATE HUD NOT ONLY FOR THIS MISREPRESENTATION BUT FOR MASSIVE WASTE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. CERTAIN PROJECTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH HUD FINANCING BUT ONLY AFTER LONG, UNNECESSARY DELAYS WHICH HAVE LED TO INCREASINGLY HIGHER COSTS FOR PROJECTS. WHILE IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS AND HOUSING FREEZE IN .JANUARY, 1973 WAS A DELIBERATE ACTION (AND POSSIBLY ILLEGAL), IT WAS NOT THEN OBVIOUS THEN THAT THE OTHER DELAYS WERE DELIBERATE AND That THE ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY DID NOT INTEND 70 FINANCE ANY HOUSING PROJECTS. I CAN ONLY SUSPECT THAT THE LAST DESCRIBED IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROTOTYPE COST FORMULA, MAY BE PART OF A PLOT 70 BRING THE ENTIRE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC HOUSING INTO DISREPUTE. I AL'SO CONFESS TO BEING BITTER ABOUT THE WHOLE BUSINESS AS MANY LOCAL OFFICIALS HERE AND ELSEWHERE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DELUDED AND HAVE CLEARLY WASTED YEARS OF TIME AND EFFORT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN EXERTED TOWARD BETTER SOLUTIONS. THE PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAMS HAVE GOOD AND BAD FEATURES BUT ON THE WHOLE HAVE BEEN OF VALUE TO THE COUNTRY. HOWEVER, SINCE 1968 HUD HAS BEEN RUN BY OFFICIALS WHO ARE APPARENTLY-OPPOSED TO THE PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. IT IS APPARENT THAT THEY HAVE DELIVERATELY MADE A MOCKERY OF THE PROGRAMS. THE HOUSING SITUATION IS NOW WORSE THAN IT WAS SIX YEARS AGO AND MILLIONS OF POOR FAMILIES HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUFFER NEEDESSLY. '' ON MOTION BY [~R. GILLIAM~ SECONDED BY MRS. RINEHART IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENT BY MR. FIFE, ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE SENSE OF THE COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON THIS DATE ON A REQUEST TO CLOSE RUGBY ROAD AT THE 250 BYPASS. MR. JIM MARSHALL ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL AND GAVE A REPORT OF THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THE STUDY AND EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST. HE GAVE A NL~BER OF ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT RECOMMENDED THE CLOSING ON A TRIAL BASIS WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE THROUGH TRAFFIC THUS REDUCING TRAFFIC AND ACCIDENTS. THRE RESIDENTS OF RUGBY ROAD ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL AND REQUESTED THAT THE ROAD BE CLOSED. A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS OF DAIRY ROAD ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO THE CLOSING. MR. BERNARD MORIN PRESENTED A PETITION IN OPPOSITION SIGNED BY ALL THE RESIDENTS OF DAIRY ROAD. HE PROPOSED MAKING DAIRY ROAD ONE-WAY NORTH AND RUGBY ROAD ONE-WAY SOUTHEAST ON A TRIAL BASIS. MR. GILLIAM SUGGESTED THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE AND MAYBE INSTALLING SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE. MR. VAN YAHRES STATED THAT HE ~3LLD AGREE WITH THE ONE-WAY PROPOSAL ON BOTH STREETS. 0N MOTION BY MR. FIFE, SECONDED BY ~. VAN YAHRES THE CITY MANAGER WAS REQUESTED TO MAKE A FURTHER STUDY OF THE ONE-WAY PROPOSAL ON BOTH STREETS.