|
In 1951, the
Buffalo
Municipal Housing Authority built Dante Place, a seven building complex overlooking the
Buffalo
River. The
funds used to build this complex were supplied by the State of
New York,
with the stipulation that the buildings would only be used as affordable
housing for low income persons. By 1960, the complex suffered problems
common to other low-income high-rise developments including high crime and
a rising vacancy rate.
It was decided that
something would have to be done in order to salvage the 616 unit complex.
Plans were made to create a tenant operated, limited dividend housing
company to lease the property from BMHA. With the signing of a 40 year
lease the Marine Drive Apartments were born.
Marine Drive’s Other Plans
In 1965 BMHA signed a lease with the tenant co-op that
called for Marine Drive
to be used “solely for the purpose of providing housing accommodations for
persons of low income” but from the beginning,
Marine Drive
had other plans. Approximately 450 low income families were moved out of
the complex to create an opportunity for a more elite, politically
connected, and predominately white population to take advantage of rents
ranging from $265-$493 including utilities.
According to the lease, a “preference” was to be given to
the existing occupants of Dante Place, but none of the Dante tenants were
left and Marine Drive was transformed from a low-income to a middle-income
complex that even housed a “few millionaires” according to a former
manager.
In 1987, after hearing concerns from HOME as well as
others, the Buffalo News printed an article which brought the
practices of
Marine Drive to light. In the article, a spokesman from the State
Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR - the agency responsible
for supervising the operation of State financed housing developments)
admitted that he was concerned with the fact that Marine Drive was not
serving the population it was built to house. But, he asked, “…what can
you do about it?” If a representative from the organization formed to
monitor these complexes didn’t know what to do, who would? HOME did.
Turning up the heat
Since the late 1980’s, HOME had made several inquiries
regarding management practices at
Marine Drive. HOME’s
inquiries led to an audit by the DHCR in 1994 and an investigation in
January 1995 by George R. Moresco, then State Inspector General.
Moresco’s report revealed, among other things that, “tenant files were
incomplete and in disarray,” and that the complex had a flagrant disregard
of DHRC occupancy requirements. The State Inspector General’s
recommendations included that tenants relocate when their family income
exceeded the legal limit; that tenants move to smaller apartments when
their household size decreased, and that Marine Drive should be required
to prepare a DHCR-approved affirmative marketing plan as mandated by state
regulations to attract a diverse tenant population. These recommendations
appeared to only be suggestions, as they were not enforced.
During this time, HOME formed the Systemic Discrimination
Committee (SDC) comprised of attorneys and board members who were
concerned with the apparently illegal practices of
Marine Drive. The SDC
developed strategies to combat the suspected discrimination, and they
monitored DHCR while DHCR monitored Marine Drive.
Months before the Inspector General’s report was public,
HOME had prepared a series of recommended remedial actions and sent them
to DHCR. These suggestions included the replacement of current in-house
managers with a professional rental management firm; expansion of
Marine Drive’s
tenant board to include representatives from civil rights organizations;
and holding a lottery of new applicants and those eligible from the
waiting list to create a new list that would better reflect
Buffalo’s
diversity. These recommendations were sent to DHCR. They were sent a
second time, with Mayor Anthony Masiello’s stamp of approval, after the
Inspector General’s report. The proposed actions were ignored in both
instances.
Ultimately, HOME’s SDC was able to meet with the assistant
commissioner of the DHCR and it seemed as if some of the proposed actions
were finally being adopted. However, the manner in which they were acted
on seemed designed to maintain the status quo.
Business as usual
The state had ordered
Marine Drive to begin
an affirmative outreach campaign to recruit low-income minorities for
tenancy. Marine Drive responded to this mandate by searching for
low-income non-whites in rural Erie County (Concord, Colden, Elma, etc.)
where minorities make up less than 2% of the population.
Then in 1995, HOME’s recommendation of a lottery was put
into place to select new applicants for the waiting list, but once again
Marine Drive
attempted to make the process an arduous one. First, the preliminary
application for the lottery had to be submitted with a $25 non-refundable
fee. Secondly, the application itself was very complicated and
applications that were filled out incorrectly were automatically
rejected. Thirdly, the waiting list had not been purged of the ineligible
applicants, nor had the complex been purged of the unqualified tenants.
In order to ensure that applicants were not unduly
discouraged, HOME placed ads in the challenger and staff and board members
volunteered to assist applicants in filling out the complex application.
By the time of the second lottery, HOME was able to have the $25.00
application fee waived and applicants who paid it during the first lottery
reimbursed. The two lotteries, in addition to the eligible applicants from
Marine Drive’s
initial waiting list yielded more than 340 potential tenants. Before the
lotteries, 95% of
Marine Drive’s
tenant population was white and non-Hispanic, and after the lottery, this
population was 89%.
Applicant complaints
HOME was pleased with
the result of the lotteries but it was not enough. HOME’s investigation
appeared to be at a standstill until June 1997 when a client called HOME
with an allegation of racial discrimination against
Marine Drive.
In May of 1997, Marie Graham,* a 62 year-old African
American female, called BMHA and was told that there were
apartments available at Marine Drive and that they were currently
accepting applications. When she called
Marine Drive, however,
she was told that no apartments were available and that she should watch
for a notice in the Buffalo News.
Ms. Graham called BMHA management and reported what she had
been told. The manager told her that apartments were indeed available and
that she should call them back. When she did so, she was once again
informed that she should watch for an announcement in the paper. After
reporting her treatment to BMHA and being told to put her compliant in
writing, she considered contacting HOME.
A few days later, Ms. Graham went in person to
Marine Drive and was
told that they were no longer accepting any applications. She was told
that no apartments were currently available but last week there had been
several. She was told they had been announced in the newspaper and rented
the same day. She was also told that management had not decided yet the
procedure for the waiting list.
Ms. Graham returned to
Marine Drive the next
day to see if they had decided on their waiting list procedure. When she
arrived, there was an older white man waiting at the counter. She was
surprised when a security guard was given a key to show an apartment by
the same woman who told her the day before there were no available units.
When client inquired about the gentleman viewing an apartment, she was
told that he had applied the previous week.
Ms. Graham was convinced that she had been given such a
difficult time applying for an apartment because of her race, and she
contacted HOME. HOME investigated her case and she was referred to an
attorney at Neighborhood Legal Services. HOME also received several other
calls from clients accusing
Marine Drive of
discriminatory practices and several additional cases were opened.
Broken promises
As a result of its investigation against
Marine Drive,
HOME filed a lawsuit on December 8, 1998. After three years of
contentious negotiation, both parties agreed to settle the suit.
Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. approved the
confidential terms of the settlement which included compensation for the
plaintiffs and a series of affirmative actions the defendants agreed to
undertake.
Both before and after monitoring visits in January and
April of 2002, HOME notified
Marine Drive’s
attorneys that the complex had not fulfilled its obligations under the
consent decree. When these warnings were ignored, HOME attorney Linda R.
Hassburg (of the Western New York Law Center) filed a motion for civil
contempt against
Marine Drive
on September 20, 2002.
Magistrate Schroeder found that
Marine Drive had
reluctantly accepted the settlement that it had agreed upon with HOME and
they failed to comply with key provisions of the consent decree. In
several instances the judge even noted a willful noncompliance.
Magistrate Judge Schroeder’s contempt decision ordered that
Marine Drive must finalize rental policies and procedures in
conformance with applicable federal and state law and regulations and post
them prominently in the rental office; maintain a log of tenant inquiries;
and allow HOME to monitor
Marine Drive’s
compliance with other provisions for an additional three months; and pay
attorney’s fees.
On January 10, 2003, after waiting nearly 14 months, HOME finally received a copy of
Marine Drive’s rental policies and procedures which left a lot to be desired.
Marine Drive proposed to do the bare minimum required by DHCR and even
managed to ignore familial status and sexual orientation as protected
classes. The policies appeared to discriminate against persons with
disabilities, and may have found a way to disqualify many Section 8
participants.
Less than a month after Magistrate Schroeder’s decision,
Marine Drive
threatened HOME with legal action for allegedly violating a
confidentiality provision in the initial settlement agreement after HOME
was quoted in a series of Buffalo News articles about the case. The
attorney for Marine Drive asked the judge to seal the case file from the
public and the media. Finding that it was
Marine Drive’s
own “failure to abide by the settlement agreement that generated the
public attention it currently [sought] to preclude,” Magistrate Judge
Schroeder denied the request of Marine Drive to seal the file.
In January of this year, city officials made a public
commitment to privatize
Marine Drive
to protect low income tenants. When the current contract expires the
present tenant co-op will not have the opportunity to extend their current
lease. This new tentative plan, if managed correctly could restore the
property to tax rolls, yield revenue from the proceeds of the sale, assure
equal opportunity, and protect the rights of current tenants.
A Campaign of Fear
In response, it appears that
Marine Drive’s manager
has started a campaign to generate fear among the tenants, claiming they
would likely be forced out of their homes if the 20 year extension is not
granted.
Not everyone is happy with HOME’s involvement with
Marine Drive. Several
tenants of the complex have spoken out against HOME in the fear that they
will be displaced or have to pay a rent they cannot afford. In fact, Mayor
Anthony M. Masiello has repeatedly assured tenants they would not be
replaced.
News reports suggest another possible motivation for the
campaign to extend
Marine Drive’s
lease. According to information obtained from DHCR, the manager and her
husband earn $112,000 working at the complex.
Despite criticism, HOME will continue to pursue its dual
goals of assuring equal opportunities and protecting the rights of current
and future tenants.
*Not her real name. |
