<-- back to sign up for neighborhood issue email lists
Crime email — sample
From: Craig Kelley [mailto:craig@craigkelley.org]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:57 PM
Subject: Update on Crime-related meetings- FW: CIVIC UNITY MEETING - WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 AT 6 PM JEFFERSON PARK COMMUNITY ROOM
Folks:
I thought some of you might be interested in this meeting (info forwarded at the end of this email), to be held at the Jefferson Park Community Room at 6 PM on Wednesday, 15 July to address crime issues in and around Jefferson Park. I've also added a few other things I've picked up, to include my summary of CHA tenant/voucher management issues.
The Mayor has also, as I understand things, met with CPD officials and representatives from the larger property management companies in North Cambridge, to include some on the 'other' side of the tracks. One hope is that these properties, to include the Housing Authority properties at Jefferson Park and Lincoln Way, as well as privately owed properties such as Fresh Pond Apartments and Just-A-Start (the 'towers') and Walden Square Apartments, will start to work together to compare issues, track problem tenants and address common concerns. I'm not sure if the Mayor is planning on expanding these meetings to include a public forum.
The McCrehan pool at the end of Rindge Ave is open until 7 PM, but it is scheduled to close for good in mid-August. Based on last year's use numbers, the number of people using the pool drops pretty significantly in August and, at a cost of a bit over $20,000 to keep the pool open for the rest of the summer, it's not an easy sell to keep it, and the other DCR pool in Cambridgeport, open given ongoing (and worsening) budget constraints. There has been a limited amount of communication with DCR about pool security and at this point the City Manager feels that DCR's in-house security program is sufficient and has not directed CPD to coordinate directly with DCR about the pools.
Some Councilors have walked through CHA's properties with CHA's new security chief (former CPD Superintendent David Degou).
Sam Seidel and I have met twice with CPD staff, CHA staff and (once) a rep from Inspectional Services to discuss CHA's policies regarding termination of vouchers and evictions of tenants for troublesome behavior. At some point, Sam may hold a housing committee meeting on this topic. Because our crime problems seem disproportionately associated with our affordable housing programs (for example, CPD's attached summer safety plan focuses almost exclusively on six large public housing developments, four of which are in 02140, and Councilor Decker's meeting was specifically called to address issues at or near Jefferson Park), I'll take a stab at explaining how CHA manages it's more tenants and voucher holders. I apologize if anyone thinks I'm being offensive by focusing this email on our affordable housing residents, as the vast majority simply want to live and work without being bothered like anyone else, but that's where the bulk of attention is being paid right now.
As I understand things (and I can't claim to be 100% correct in my notes, but I'm generally pretty accurate), CHA either runs or is associated with a variety of affordable housing units, totaling (as I read their annual report) a bit over 4600 units. Some, like Jefferson Park, are CHA developments that are funded by either state or federal programs (hence the names “state side” and “federal side”). Others, like Just-A-Start's tower at Rindge and Fresh Pond Parkway, are run by large corporations and CHA has a number of Section 8 vouchers for specific units. And others are Section 8 vouchers that CHA administers but which aren't associated with any particular units- a tenant could take them to any landlord who will accept them. CHA encourages landlords to participate in this last program in a variety of ways, but the actual relationship is landlord/tenant, with CHA providing third party support. Depending on where the funding stream is coming from to build or run a development (HUD, state money, CPA funds, etc), similar units may have different rules about things like what equipment can be used where (can't use state-side funded snowblowers on federal-side buildings) and what sort of behavior is troubling enough to warrant an eviction. For example, for federal CHA units, a serious crime on or off the property may constitute reasons to start an eviction process while for state-side properties it must be on or adjacent to the property. In generally, these eviction-worthy crimes involve things like violence or drugs, activities that CHA can argue pose a serious danger to the community. Quality of life issues, such as loud parties, trash strewn around and so forth won't be enough to get a court to approve the eviction.
CHA reviews voucher holders all over town, and inspects landlords involved in the program every two years to make sure that the units are suitable for rent. Section 8 voucher holders may or may not be associated with CHA, as some voucher holders may actually come from other towns and have absolutely nothing to do with CHA. Similarly, some of CHA's voucher holders live in other towns but still get their 'mobile' vouchers through CHA. CHA must respect the privacy of its residents, so it will not tell you if a unit is a voucher unit or not. Nor will CPD or Inspectional Services necessarily know if someone with whom they're dealing is associated with a voucher program. There could, for example, be an 8 unit building with 2 voucher units. If there is trash left all over the property, CHA wouldn't necessarily get involved as it may not be trash from the voucher units. If there are problems with a voucher holder that CHA does find out about such as loud parties or a trash-strewn lawn, CHA will bring the voucher holders to their Central Square office and counsel them on the issue. At this point, 50% of moving voucher holders are moving outside of Cambridge while other voucher holders are moving in, so CHA believes that, by comparison, they run a pretty tight voucher program.
As with evictions from CHA's units, CHA can also terminate a voucher but the reason must be significant and the evidence must be strong (though not necessarily a conviction of a major crime). In both cases, the CHA must go through a suitable administrative hearing process that can take weeks or even months. And the results of such a case may not be very clear. A lease could be modified, for example, to say an adult child cannot live or visit in a unit, but those provisions can be tough to enforce. CPD and CHA are working to draft a more cohesive anti-trespassing policy, and CHA is hoping to put in license plate cameras to monitor visitors, but the 'no trespass' rules vary quite bit through the various management companies. Plus, it's fairly easy to set up a fraudulent housing history and some problem families go from development to development. Also, some communities, such as Ethiopian immigrants, are likely to have extended family members become long-term visitors, regardless of what the lease says and figuring out who is what can be a challenge.
Because the large property owners are either CHA or have management companies, it is rare that the cleanliness of those places is a serious issue. “Slum lord” type problems, to the extent we have them, tend more to be smaller properties, both owner-occupied and absentee landlord owned, scattered about town. Cambridge's Inspectional Services Department (RanjitS@cambridgema.gov), does have the ability to enforce code violations against landlords, or any property owner, with fines of up to 200$ when trash is improperly stored, etc. ISD can actually go in and clean up a property on the City's dime while putting a lien against it in court, but it's very unlikely that ISD will actually take a property from a 'slum lord.” If ISD can't get a response from a landlord or other property owner, they go to a magistrate's hearing to get a court order for the property owner to act. If that still fails, they can file criminal charges against the property owner for failing to follow the magistrate's order. Also, if a property is consistently having parties that get out of hand and the police have to respond again and again, CPD can cite a landlord or other property owner for operating a disorderly household. They just did that for a 4th of July party. http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/police_and_fire/x931223332/Cambridge-cops-bust-July-4th-bash-on-Putnam-Avenue . When it comes to issues of hoarding and so forth, though, the City must be mindful of making reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, so what one person considers to be an out-of-control neighbor may not give the City anything that's actionable.
And if a landlord isn't enforcing a lease, CHA can move against the landlord to terminate them from the voucher program, but they'd still have to prove the underlying case of significant issues with the relevant voucher holder. CHA moved 14 vouchers to terminate for cause in 2008, with 6 approved at conference panel. The other 8 may have gotten a shrunken subsidy (for example, if an adult child was moved out of the program, the subsidy would shrink because not as much housing would be required). So far in 2009, CHA has moved on 11 vouchers, two of which have been upheld at the conference panel and the rest are still pending. And even if CHA does not get a termination upheld, the process is an opportunity for CHA to discuss issues with relevant parties.
If a rental property is not owner-occupied or does not have a live-in manager, a contact point for the property should be prominently placed on the property per state law, so if you have complaints about a property you should be able to go directly to the owner or management company with little research, if you wish. Check out 105 CMR 410.481 for the cite.
Also, there is a law that prevents terminations and evictions for people who are victims of domestic violence. So if a particularly problematic unit is troublesome because of a domestic violence issue, CHA can't pursue an eviction or termination of a Section 8 subsidy even though the residents can be very disruptive in a repetitive manner because that would be acting against the victim.
So- the Council has had and is having a lot of meetings related to crime in the area and so far this summer we haven't seen the violent streak continue, though CPD is clear that they don't have a crystal ball into the future. They have a whole host of youth-oriented programs, they're doing door-knocking walk-throughs of the major housing developments with local residents to introduce themselves, they're working with CHA and the large management companies to address local rivalries and they've put a number of officers on walking and bike patrol in hotspot areas (some of that is in CPD's attached summer safety plan). Still, as people get out of prison and try to reclaim old turf, they can't promise we won't see more violence this summer.
I hope this note helps put some of our safety issues and possible solutions in perspective. I'm sorry it's not easier to address local crime and public safety issues for all of us, and it's important to re-emphasize that just because the focus of our efforts is currently on our affordable housing complexes does not reflect poorly on the vast majority of the people who live in them. Like their neighbors, they'd like crime free neighborhoods too. I'd be happy to try to meet with people if they want to discuss any of this (or anything else) in greater detail.
Thanks a lot.
Craig
From: Lopez, Donna [mailto:dlopez@cambridgema.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:14 AM
To: Kelley, Craig; Seidel, Sam; Simmons, Denise; Davis, Henrietta; Reeves, Ken; Toomey, Tim (home); Ward, Larry; Maher, David; Healy, Bob; Rossi, Rich; Haas, Robert
Cc: Decker, Marjorie; Bandar, Omar; Drury, Margaret
Subject: CIVIC UNITY MEETING - WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 AT 6 PM JEFFERSON PARK COMMUNITY ROOM
July 10, 2009
To All Interested Persons:
Please be advised that Councillor Marjorie Decker, Chair, Civic Unity Committee, has scheduled a public meeting for Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM IN THE JEFFERSON PARK COMMUNITY ROOM.
The purpose of the meeting is to update residents about the City's efforts to resolve and prevent violent crime.
You are invited to attend this meeting.
Your kind attention in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Donna
Donna P. Lopez
City Clerk's Office
City Hall
Cambridge, MA. 02139
Letter - from Robert C. Haas to Robert W. Healy, May 26, 2009 - PDF file