By Anaise Aristide, on February 15th, 2019 With the deconstruction and rebuilding of Barry Farm (most commonly referenced as Barry Farms to residents and longtime D.C citizens) under way, it is important to understand some of the key factors of this process, what led up to it and how it has been affecting the existing community. Here is a somewhat concise timeline of events to provide context and stay updated on the fast-changing neighborhood.
 
Image credits: Joy Sharon Yi
HOPE VI:
- The HOPE VI program was created in 1992 by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development to redevelop public housing across the U.S into mixed-income housing. The goal of HOPE VI was to renovate and revitalize public housing to reduce crime and diversify living conditions. The intention was to create less dense living environments.
- Many residents across the U.S that were affected by the reconstruction found problems with HOPE VI, seeing it as a process of gentrification. According to “The Urban Institute”, less than 12% of existing residents were able to move back into the renovated homes. Because HOPE VI did not require a 1 to 1 replacement for lower income residents, the program did eventually end up weeding out a lot of those residents altogether.
- Through HOPE VI over 96,000 public housing complexes were destroyed and a little more than 107,000 were created; only 56,800 of those being affordable housing.
- Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg Gardens were among the affordable housing in DC (formerly located in Navy Yard) that were lost as a result of HOPE VI.
New Communities Initiative (NCI):
- NCI was brought forth in 2005 as a response to budget cuts directly impacting D.C.’s public housing complexes and the maintenance of them.
- Resident pushback was one of the many reasons that this process was delayed until 2014.
- NCI was meant to be a revamped and more effective version of HOPE VI with a promise of 1 for 1 replacement for affordable housing tenants and units; an effort to make sure current residents could stay in their neighborhoods and have priority for the newly developed units.
- Much like HOPE VI, NCI was created to redevelop public housing in D.C., to decrease crime, reduce concentrated poverty and eliminate economic segregation in neighborhoods in an effort to reintroduce the idea of mixed-income communities.
- There is a common theory that concentrated poverty is why public housing is not as effective as it should be (as opposed to lack of funding being put towards the housing properties and overall negligence).
- In addition to the idea of having a diverse community in terms of population, NCI plans on the new buildings looking diverse; ranging in size and style.
- The initiative is specific to four DC neighborhoods; Barry Farm (located in Anacostia), Lincoln Heights (located in N.E), Northwest One (located in N.W in ward 6) and Park Morton (located in N.W in ward 1).
Barry Farm:
- Barry Farm is a historic landmark in D.C, it started off as a settlement area for newly freed Black people after the Civil War in 1867. Barry Farm became the first public housing during WWII.
- Barry Farm is located in Anacostia and (before deconstruction) had about 432 public housing units
- The application for the first stages of the Barry Farm redevelopment were approved by the zoning commission in October 2014.
- The plan would tear down any existing properties in Barry Farm and create 1,400 new housing (from low/mid rise buildings, townhouses and retail spaces).
- In December of 2014 the Barry Farm aquatic center was opened (a part of NCI). This was the first stage of a larger process to renovate the Barry Farm recreational center (an estimated $26 million project). Many Barry Farm residents were unsettled by the renovated rec center as it is only available to residents with an ID which requires certain documents and resources that some families no longer have access (or easy access) to.
- March 2016 the DC Housing Authority passed Resolution 16-06 “right to return”, which was meant to protect existing residents and their places within the community. This would make sure there was no confusion about the residents’ eligibility status and protect their entry into the newly renovated developments.
- June 2017 “Resident Design Workshop” held by DCHA and DCMPED. Intended to get community feedback and input about plans regarding development features and layout.
- August 2017 residents from Barry Farm filed a class action lawsuit against DCHA. The lawsuit was created in a pursuit to stall the redevelopment process and ensure that there would be enough housing for all of the current residents of Barry Farm. The lawsuit also mentions the horrid conditions of Barry Farm currently.
- April 2018 Barry Farm is nominated to become an Opportunity Zone which would allow “tax incentives for investments in new businesses and commercial projects in low income communities” with the goal to help promote investments in new public infrastructure, affordable housing, businesses and capital improvement”
- Many Barry Farm residents have talked about the need for prioritizing grocery stores (as there are VERY few in wards 7 and 8) over opening luxury retail stores.
- In May 2018 residents push to preserve the beauty of their neighborhoods, as a response NCI commissioned art pieces to be made that represent the Barry Farm neighborhoods.
**Since news broke of the redevelopment of Barry Farm, over 70 residents have since relocated to Highland Dwellings and Sheridan station. The specific location of the other residents who have relocated have been unaccounted for.
By Grassroots DC, on December 2nd, 2017 The Homeless Services Reform Amendment Act of 2017 is currently under DC Council review. After mulling over the latest amendments they will vote on it again December 5, 2017. Before that happens, we’d like Grassroots DC readers to have some basic information about this bill so we’ve cross-posted the following from the Fair Budget Coalition, which describes what happened during the debate of proposed changes to the bill on November 7, 2017.
By Emily McDonald, on August 29th, 2016 Emily McDonald is a graduate student in the sociology department of George Mason University. She has been a volunteer intern for Grassroots DC since May 2016.
THE FIGHT FOR PUBLIC HOUSING IN 2016
In my time with Grassroots DC, I was given the underestimated task of tracking DCHA’s budget from the founding of Potomac Gardens on Capitol Hill until now. I began looking through HUD documents, only to find different structures of information for each year. I was able to track large budget numbers, indicating a large pullback in federal spending, but little evidence of what was appropriated specifically to DC. Rather, I found changing agreements between the federal and the local every few years with little overall consistency in the federal government fully funding the DC Housing Authority, leaving public housing residents feeling the pinch.
As a sociologist, I started to see connections between what is happening with public housing in the United States and the current social concerns of our nation as a whole. Specifically, I started to understand that the fight for public housing cannot stop with pressuring local governments to subsidize housing authorities which were created to be fully funded by the federal government, but must also take on a the 21st century conversation about neoliberalism.
HOW IS DCHA FUNDED AND GOVERNED?
For a brief background, the process of funding DCHA is a bit more complicated than a strictly local DC agency. Funds are appropriated first to the the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), then to local housing authorities. The District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) is an entity of HUD and an independent agency of DC local government. This means the agency is particularly susceptible to federal pullbacks depending on the current political and economic ideology of the time, but is governed by a board appointed by the DC Mayor. The DC local government then subsidizes DCHA, though the only legal responsibility to fund the agency lies with HUD and the federal government.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS AND ADVOCATES?
It is im portant to understand the pullback of federal funding as a national trend trickles down to local spending. According to a 2016 DC Fiscal Policy Institute report, DC Council funding is not only a subsidy, but a requirement for DCHA to sustain. I found the same through DCHA director Adrianne Todman’s 2016 testimony to the DC Council. She urges for DC local spending to continue as they have for the few years prior. Her testimony includes an appeal for funding that is not only to promote new programs, but a basic necessity for the agency to sustain itself. I make this distinction to say Todman is not asking for additional money to add programming to additionally benefit the district, but a subsidy without which the agency may not operate at its expected capacity.This indicates the federal funding is insufficient for operation.
The central problem is the basic capacity of DC local government in contrast to the federal budget. As the cost of living in the district increases for residents who have, quite literally, built DC local, they are left with little options for housing in the city that is their birthright. This remains particularly true for the elderly, disabled, and families with children. While DC local government is subsidizing the agency to ensure the operation continues, there is a changing landscape at the federal level that I argue requires a new form of understanding.
According to theories of neoliberalism, big institutions are broken down, then slowly discarded in pieces in the name of private rule and small tax burdens on the rich (Brown 2015). This is often masked as freedom and flexibility for agencies like DCHA. Government programs aimed to support the lower and middle classes under a capitalist system are chipped away. Public-private partnerships are emphasized to reduce the burden of government. In turn, what is traditionally a public good paid for by publicly accountable funds are privatized.
 In terms of housing, The free market certainly has not shown the ability to self-produce adequate, accessible housing for all. Without the protection of dedicated public housing, the affordable housing market begins to dwindle, forcing low-income residents in the area to relocate elsewhere. According to a 2015 report by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, since 2012, should the lowest DC residents not receive housing subsidies and reside solely in the private market, “the average rent for this group [would equal] 80 percent of average income” (p. 3). Essentially, non-subsidized housing is not an option for this population. The free market has also not promised higher wages for the lowest income residents. Public housing is a good that must be preserved should the district remain a diverse, inclusive place.
This preservation will require more than pressuring DC local to subsidize DCHA, though I do not disagree this is an important point. However, eyes must remain on both the federal and local to sustain such public goods. I base this point on how public housing is structured in the first place, as a federal entity which ensures access to safe and consistent housing. Federal pullbacks allow for pressure to go to the states, but states and local districts are not necessarily bound to ensuring public housing remains a public good. With this understanding, I have come to conceptualize public housing in the context of economic justice that has popularized in mainstream conversations recently (i.e. Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders campaign, etc). The rich are richer than ever before, and even the most “progressive” of politicians are operating in a changed landscape where private solutions to public problems are valued as “sustainable” and “self-reliant,” across party lines in the United States. Advocating for public housing certainly requires pressure on local officials, but it will also require a strong stand against neoliberal ideology that is changing the environment in which our public life operates.
Sources
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1685683-d-c-affordable-housing-report.html#document/p1
http://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/16-01-27-Public-housing-paper-final.pdf
http://dccouncil.us/budget/2016/housing-and-community-development
http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/41515DCHACombinedTestimony.pdf
By Liane Scott, on June 7th, 2016 The fight to increase the amount of affordable housing in the District of Columbia should also include efforts to maintain the city’s public housing. It was a need for clean, safe and affordable housing that prompted the creation of public housing in the 1930s. That need still exists today but our willingness to fund it has been on the decline since the 1960s. Today, the Public Housing Operating Fund—the main source of revenue for public housing maintenance and repairs–pays for only 86% of the items in HUD’s budget.
It looks as though the D.C. City Council may at long last be trying to make up the difference with the Public Housing Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 2016. The problem that those who advocate on behalf of public housing have with the bill is that it won’t pay for maintenance if the housing is slated for redevelopment. So if you live in Barry Farm, Kenilworth Courts, Park Morton, Highland Dwellings or Lincoln Heights–all properties scheduled for eventual redevelopment–you’re out of luck.
The article below provides more details.
New Legislation Welcomed by Public Housing Advocates
Cross-posted from Street Sense
Written By Reginald Black
 Members of the Empower DC housing campaign and residents of public housing took a walk around the Wilson Building weeks before the first FY2017 budget vote to meet with council members and discuss their budget priorities. The residents have been calling for desperately needed repairs to both occupied and unoccupied units of public housing managed by the D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA). The residents have been requesting work orders for more than six years, some properties haven’t been properly maintained since the 1980s.
In March, At-Large Councilmember Elissa Silverman and Councilmembers Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), Charles Allen (Ward 6) and Mary Cheh (Ward 3) introduced a bill that would provide funds for maintenance of existing public housing units. It is a great move by council, but public housing residents still had some concerns regard language within the bill.
One of the first stops on the list was Ward 8 Councilmember LaRuby May’s office. The councilwoman was not in at the time, but the group met with Councilwoman May’s staff. Their main concern stems from a line in the bill that states the repair funds allocated could not be used for properties up for demolition. “We wanted to address line 46,” said Detrice Bel, leader of the Barry Farm Tenant and Allies Association. “Residents have an issue with that.”
“I live in a development on Capitol Hill that is supposed to be upkept, but it’s not,” said public housing resident Robert Lee. He asked if May’s office could seek changes to the language of the bill that would force maintenance people do their job. “We need more accountability when it comes to public housing. It’s like everybody’s looking for a paycheck.”
Lee also described his days as a maintenance worker. “In the morning, we clean up the activity from the night before,” he said. “But after that, when is the work going to get done in the places?”
May’s legislative director, Michael Austin said their office is open to all ideas. “We’re always trying to find what we can do to preserve homes, that includes public housing.”
To Lee, there is no observable sense of urgency on these issues. “These are people’s lives we’re talking about,” he said. “These are the same arguments we present you all the time.” The bill has not moved forward since a notice of intent to act on it was published in the District of Columbia register on March 18.
By Guest Contributor, on March 9th, 2016 The article below explains why the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act is not working for Congress Heights residents. If you’d like an opportunity to do something about that, consider checking out the nonprofit Justice First.
Cross-Posted from the Washington Post
written by Abigail Hauslohner
 Rodent and bedbug infestations. Raw sewage in the basement. Ovens used for warmth in lieu of heat.
It is all part of the “outrageous” saga of a “slumlord” in one of the District’s poorest neighborhoods, lawyers and tenants testified before the D.C. Council on Thursday night.
But more troubling, council members said during the three-hour hearing, is that while the tenants of four rent-controlled apartments in Southeast may be experiencing one of the most egregious — or at least the most publicized — housing debacles in recent city history, they are hardly alone.
Rather, a hearing meant partly to determine a solution for a small group of tenants in the Congress Heights neighborhood of Southeast cracked open a larger chasm of flaws and missing pieces in the city government’s stated mission to protect poor D.C. residents from displacement amid the rapid redevelopment and gentrification of District neighborhoods.
Among them are a flawed Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), which, while designed to protect tenants from displacement amid redevelopment, is actually “extremely hard to execute,” council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) said.
Continue reading Why a Law Meant to Protect the Poor from Gentrification Doesn’t Really Work
|
