[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 111 (Thursday, August 11, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             MUSICAL CHAIRS

                                 ______


                       HON. HELEN DELICH BENTLEY

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, August 11, 1994

  Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, the Congress passed the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. That act contained many 
important programs which I support, including, among others, project-
based accounting, family unification, public housing vacancy reduction, 
reform of public housing management, termination of tenancy for 
criminal activity and rental assistance fraud recoveries. Tucked inside 
the 425-page document was ``Moving to Opportunity,'' or MTO, a program 
designed to encourage families to move from areas of high concentration 
of poverty to areas of lower poverty levels.
  It is not the intent of MTO, but the method in which it is being 
implemented in my, and other Members' districts, that has our 
constituents crying foul!
  My constituents are being told, in the newspapers, that MTO will have 
little impact on existing neighborhoods. Therein lies a major problem. 
There appears to have been no effort on the part of HUD to communicate 
directly with either the local governments involved, or the 
neighborhood organizations.
  In two letters written to Secretary Cisneros, I questioned the lack 
of information and notice about the program. I also questioned what 
planning had been done for support services for MTO participants such 
as transportation, education, and additional social services 
requirements. In my letter I ask the Secretary or his designee to meet 
with the affected communities to directly address those concerns.
  Secretary Cisneros claims this redistribution of the poor from one 
political subdivision to another will make for a better society.
  Instead, MTO programs are creating massive resentment in 
neighborhoods where couples are working two jobs to afford their home 
only to see a neighbor on section 8 living in a similar home being paid 
for not by the sweat of that neighbor's brow, but, by the couple's tax 
dollars.
  Even the U.S. General Accounting Office has noted the unfairness of 
the plan by writing that:

       The high rents and quality of section 8 housing invite 
     resentment on the part of the taxpaying public who see their 
     subsidized neighbors living in better accommodations than 
     they themselves can afford.

  One of my constituents spoke for many of his neighbors when he 
demanded that the Government stop punishing achievement.
  MTO was, we were told, a pilot project that would run for 10 years, 
then be assessed. However, Mr. Cisneros has made it clear he wants to 
provide freedom of choice in housing in every major city and the 
Congress already is being asked to approve an expansion of this effort. 
This time it is being called the Housing Choice and Community 
Investment Act. We must not allow this current strategy to expand. This 
policy of musical chairs, moving poor Americans from jurisdiction to 
jurisdiction which fails to address the real problems.
  The administration has put too much emphasis on moving the poor out 
of deteriorating cities and not enough emphasis on rebuilding those 
cities.
  Under MTO, a section 8 recipient could receive rent of up to $603 per 
month for a two bedroom apartment in Baltimore County. In Prince 
George's Frederick, Calvert, and Charles Counties in Maryland, HUD will 
pay up to $1,385 a month in rental subsidies per apartment, even though 
there are few, if any apartments in those counties with rents that 
high.
  Section 8 now serves only about one-third of those eligible. Instead 
of subsidizing the entire cost of housing for the few at above-market 
rental rates, why not split the available dollars among all of those 
eligible?
  And, if the intent really is to break the cycle of poverty, why not 
take a cue from President Jimmy Carter's Habitat for Humanity and use 
the millions in subsidized rents now handed over to well-off landlords 
to help rehabilitate poorer neighborhoods and provide home ownership 
opportunities? History tells us that pride of ownership is the only way 
to turn a neighborhood around, and our cities need this kind of 
transformation.
  In his Wall Street Journal essay August 4, 1994, James Bovard noted 
that:

       The notion that HUD can give away housing to some people 
     without having any adverse effects on their fellow citizens 
     and neighbors is the ultimate liberal pipedream.

                          ____________________