News & Features Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology
  HOME
NEW THIS WEEK
EDITORS' PICKS
LISTINGS
NEWS & FEATURES
MUSIC
FILM
ART
BOOKS
THEATER
DANCE
TELEVISION
FOOD & DRINK
ARCHIVES
LETTERS
PERSONALS
CLASSIFIEDS
ADULT
ASTROLOGY
PHOENIX FORUM DOWNLOAD MP3s

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
OUT ON THE STREET
House call
BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI

For months, we have heard about the state’s woeful fiscal situation — about the billion-dollar shortfalls, the tax hikes, and the deep cuts to services. But the one aspect of the Massachusetts budget that hasn’t drawn much attention ranks among the state’s biggest barriers to success: the housing allocation. In its fiscal 2003 budget, the House of Representatives takes aim at as much as $45 million in state housing programs — all of which the Senate has kept intact. As the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees iron out their differences this month, advocates are calling on legislators to save those programs that ease the state’s fierce housing crisis. Leading the call are advocates like Julia Kehoe, who works at the housing agency known as Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership (MBHP). The Phoenix caught up with Kehoe recently to discuss the state of the housing cuts in the fiscal 2003 budget.

Q: How has the budget crisis affected the state’s housing programs?

A: It’s interesting. The House and the Senate have funded some programs — most notably, the Housing Consumer Education Center (HCEC), which is a statewide network of housing agencies that administer the federal Section 8 vouchers and provide assistance to tenants and landlords. The HCEC received $1 million from the House and Senate. But we’ve been hearing that, since there’s such a fiscal crisis, even items that were funded by both houses could be reduced. Also on the chopping block is the Emergency Assistance Rental Arrearage (EARA) program. It provides up to four months’ worth of back rent for people who are at risk of eviction. The House eliminated the $11.7 million line item. The Senate did not. If eliminated, it means that more people would end up in shelters, which would cost more money. At this point, it costs the state approximately $22,000 to provide emergency shelter for a family for a year, whereas the average annual benefit in the EARA program is $1100 per family. The state budget spends so much money on homeless programs. But if [legislators] would just allocate a fraction of the expenses to get people out of shelters and into housing, they’d save so much.

Q: Of all the programs on the chopping block, which is most essential?

A: The HCEC is the kind of thing that we should do more of. It’s a new program set up to help tenants and property owners better utilize the Section 8 vouchers. We run housing-discrimination and housing-search workshops — anything that will help people use the vouchers and improve self-sufficiency. It’s become a positive prevention effort that costs the state $1 million. But what’s most risky about the proposed cuts is the [elimination] of the EARA and the Emergency Family Shelter programs. If the House prevails and legislators spend less on these programs, more people will become homeless, which will eventually cost the state more. In addition, the Individual Self-Sufficiency Initiative is a program designed for people who are in a shelter and working, yet need money to get their own place. We’ve worked with about 250 people this year through this program, which is only $2.3 million. Things like this are relatively inexpensive, but the cost of not funding them will be significantly higher in the long run.

Q: What do these cuts mean for the city’s housing crisis?

A: Not good. For example, if the EARA program is eliminated, as it is in the House version, and even 25 percent of the people who would have benefited from it end up in emergency shelter, the state will spend another $52.8 million on these people. In 1991, key homeless-prevention and housing programs were eliminated from the state budget, and the number of families in shelters increased by 33 percent, from 620 families a night in July 1991 to 826 in July 1992. So we’ve seen this happen before. When I started at MBHP three years ago, everyone was bragging because we didn’t have any clients staying in hotels and motels. People went from shelters to Section 8 housing. Now there are over 350 people per night staying in hotels and motels because there isn’t enough room in shelters and people cannot find Section 8 housing.

Q: If you could tell legislators now ironing out the budget one thing, what would it be?

A: Legislators and even the gubernatorial candidates talk so much about not having enough affordable-housing development, but we’re missing the chance to capitalize on what we do have. There are thousands of Section 8 vouchers that aren’t being used. So units are out there, and we can access them — but only if we have the type of funding that would allow us to reach out to property owners, like with HCEC. If legislators helped reach out to property owners, they’d be showing the federal government that, despite the fact that Boston has a terrible market, we’re doing all we can to make sure the 20,000-plus families on the area’s waiting list are housed. The state needs to do all it can to make sure these vouchers are used. If legislators paid attention to Section 8, they could address the crisis and help families live on their own with dignity, which is all they want anyway.

Issue Date: July 4-11, 2002
Back to the News and Features table of contents.
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend