A CHA “AHA” MOMENT

(AFTER I POSTED THIS BLOG, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE CHA EXPLAINING THAT THE CHA HAD MADE A MISTAKE AND WOULD BE CORRECTING IT.)

Sometimes I start off with a blog idea that ends up taking a totally different direction once I begin my research.  That is what happened with today’s blog.  I originally was going to write about the proposed drug testing plan for Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) residents—then I went to the CHA web site  and got distracted by all the “shiny objects” of information!

To remind people, in May, I wrote about the CHA tenant waiting list when I was examining newly elected Chicago Mayor Emanuel’s Transition Plan. That is when we learned that there are only 17,800 units of public housing and a wait list that was capped at 40,000 (Hundreds of thousands of people applied.)  Some people have been on the wait list for up to 10 years!  It is harder to get CHA Housing than for a heavy metal rock star to get past a co-op Board in Manhattan!

Once someone gets selected for CHA Housing they have to sign a lease agreement.  I own property in Washington, D.C. with my sister and our lease is, I think, about four pages long.  The draft of the proposed CHA FY 2011 lease is 86 pages long and is actually called  ADMISSIONS AND CONTINUED OCCUPANCY POLICY  (ACOP). At the bottom of each page is the footer, “Scheduled to be presented to the Board of Commissioners July 19, 2011.”

It is a draft because the CHA is holding public hearings on changes in the agreement—including adding a yearly drug testing policy.  The public hearings will occur and then the CHA Board will vote on Tuesday, July 19^thon the changes.  I seriously doubt that the public hearings will make one iota of difference in what the CHA has added to the rules.  Why do I think that?  Read on.

Also note on the website  another draft copy of the new ACOP. It has the changes highlighted in blue and is 98 pages long instead of the original 86 because of all the squiggle marks indicating the changes.

There is also one big difference in the two draft agreements.  Remember that the first one, all neatly typed with the word “draft” stamped on it had a footer saying it was to be presented to the Board on July 19^th?  Well, the second one’s footer, on every page, reads ” Approved by Board of Commissioners July 19, 2011.”

How could the CHA already know the Board is going to vote to approve the ACOP on July 19^th when today is June 6^th and the public hearings have just started?  I don’t think the CHA Board has early voting.  If we lived in Copenhagen, I would say, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Aha!