Frequently Asked Questions
Why doesn't Seattle Housing Authority replace all of the housing it is tearing down in the same location?
The HOPE VI program does not support replacing all of the original low-income housing on site. One program goal is reducing the concentration of low-income housing. Seattle Housing Authority also supports the transformation of these communities from low-income enclaves to mixed-income neighborhoods.
In addition, Seattle Housing Authority does not have access to funding that would make this possible. Capital grants received annually from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are not sufficient.
Why isn't all of the housing being replaced as traditional public housing?
Traditional public housing requires on-going annual operating subsidy from HUD, which has been steadily eroding over the past ten years as the federal government has been allocating less and less funding to traditional public housing. The federal government is not supporting the construction of any new public housing.
What is the role of Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) in replacement housing?
Housing Choice Vouchers are used to provide ongoing operating subsidy to replacement housing units owned and managed by Seattle Housing Authority or other non-profit organizations. Rather than assigning the voucher to a specific tenant, the housing authority assigns the voucher to an apartment. In this way the housing provider receives enough subsidy to make the unit available to extremely low-income residents, those with incomes under 30 percent of the area median income.
Are people who use Housing Choice Vouchers able to find suitable housing in Seattle?
For the most part, residents who choose to accept a Housing Choice Voucher rather than relocating back to a redeveloped community have been able to find the kind of housing they want. In some cases, they have chosen to relocate outside of Seattle, to be near jobs or family.
Why doesn't Seattle Housing Authority simply renovate and remodel the existing communities such as Rainier Vista, instead of tearing them down and building new housing?
There are currently no federal housing programs that would provide sufficient funding for renovation of these worn-out housing units. Also, revitalizing these communities provides the opportunity to create somewhat denser, more urban neighborhoods with new social services to support low-income residents as they work toward increased self-sufficiency.
Why is Seattle Housing Authority replacing traditional family housing open to anyone on the agency's waiting list with housing that is restricted to the elderly?
Elderly single-person households have always been a large component of Seattle Housing Authority's resident mix. They also make up a large portion of the waiting list. By building housing specifically for the elderly, the agency is taking advantage of federal funding for this type of housing while preparing for the future when additional housing for the elderly will be needed even more than it is now.
How is the HOPE VI program in Seattle different from HOPE VI in other parts of the country?
The HOPE VI program does not require that housing authorities replace all of the housing that is lost to HOPE VI redevelopment. Consequently, in many parts of the country, HOPE VI really does result in a reduction of the amount of housing available to those with very low incomes. In Seattle, however, the housing authority has made a commitment to one-for-one replacement, and is carrying through on that promise.
Seattle has also made a significant effort to include residents in the planning and development of the new HOPE VI communities. Residents have participated in design workshops, policy-making and other aspects of planning for and implementing the new neighborhoods.
In addition, Seattle has a higher than usual return rate for residents coming back into the redeveloped communities. Of the original 832 residents of the old Holly Park, for example, 254 expressed a preference to return to the new community. Of those 254, 227 households eventually returned to NewHolly. This represented 27 percent of the original population returning, which is higher than the national average.
