ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page| PDF
Version
ANCHORAGE TESTIMONY - OCTOBER 15, 1992
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT #12 - TESTIMONY
OF BESSIE O'ROURKE
DIRECTOR, HOUSING DEPT., NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH
October 26, 1992
Alaska Natives Commission
4000 Old Seward Highway Suite 100
Anchorage Alaska 99503
RE: Testimony for Alaska Natives Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
What follows are comments additional to those I presented orally to the Commission hearing on October 15. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission concerning these issues.
I am the Housing Director for the North Slope Borough, and my office manages the Tagiugmiullu, Nunamiullu (formerly ASRC) Housing Authority, which encompasses the same region as the Borough.
I would like to address housing issues within our region, which encompasses Barrow and seven outlying villages, none accessible by road, and all subject to extreme climactic conditions. Within this generation there were families living in sod houses in our region. Housing quality has improved dramatically, but there remain many families living several generations to one home, or living with abuse or substance abuse, or living in terribly substandard units. There is not enough decent housing in our region, and the existing programs need to be flexible enough to meet a broader spectrum of the need.
Housing shortages contribute to and perpetuate a wide range of social ills. Both federal and state programs should take into account the fact that our region, and likely other regions of the state, lack an adequate supply of decent housing, one of the most basic needs of our residents, and indeed of people everywhere.
Our communities include HUD Indian and public housing, in the form of the Mutual Help Homeownership and Low Rent programs, and more development under those two programs is planned. However, federal regulations for each of those programs too often have no relevance to life in the arctic.
For instance, the income limits for the HUD programs, while theoretically set to reflect our costs of living, do not do so adequately. The remoteness of our villages, as well as the extreme climate, contribute to the high costs of living. One cost of living index, using Seattle as 100, places Ketchikan at 125, and Barrow at 385. That is, an item that costs $100 in Seattle, would cost $385 in Barrow. The seven villages outside of Barrow within our region experience even higher costs, on an average, as distance and logistics add to transportation costs. The highest of the income limits for both our HUD-subsidized programs is $59,050, for a family of eight members. Given our costs of living, that annual income makes it very difficult for any family to survive, much less a large family, such as one with eight household members.
Payment calculations as well as eligibility determinations currently include the value of all household members' permanent fund dividends, as well as any longevity bonus income in the household-Not only must income limits be reviewed and reset, so as to allow for further participation in the programs, but so must these unique Alaskan benefits be excluded from the payment and eligibility determinations.
It makes a significant difference to eligibility and affordabiity to include these types of income. It frequently makes the substantive difference between being eligible and not being eligible for our programs.
Moreover, these state benefits are intended to help our residents to make ends meet, and often they do. The effect of HUD's treatment of them is that the family may find its monthly payment increased, so that the benefit is not realized, or the family may find that it is not eligible to participate in the HUD-assisted program at all because of these programs, which were intended to help. These are substantive and often critical differences which a regulatory change could remedy.
By joint resolution last session, the Alaska legislature urged HUD to exclude the longevity bonus and permanent fund dividend income from payment calculations. While Senator Stevens has stated he supports that action, which would require a regulatory change, indications are that HUD does not consider such a change a priority. While a regulatory change may be a cumbersome process, and not to be undertaken lightly, I think it is time that HUD recognize that the unique circumstances of Alaska do merit special treatment in the regulations. Unique state benefits designed to ease our lives, and special expenses associated with subsistence are but two examples of areas in which such reconsideration is needed. In fact, without such tailored regulations, the availability of the very programs HUD manages for the benefit of our eligible population is reduced.
HUD's regulations do not allow for the special concerns of rural Alaska, insofar as either the unique state benefits, or the unique costs of living. Moreover, Alaska Natives' substantial expenses for subsistence activities are not recognized under the federal regulations. HUD's approach to such unique needs appears to be inflexible, despite the fact that these needs and concerns are well documented, and despite the fact that because of this regulatory inflexibility the value and intent of the HUD programs are diminished.
Finally, it is not unusual to find that
HUD’s regulations, which were written with the lower 48 in mind, and apparently urban areas of the lower 48, have absolutely no bearing on life in our communities. Nonetheless, when a regulation is "on the books",
we are told we must abide by it, despite its admitted inapplicability
to our region.
Such regulations as those which are intended to avoid the concentrations of low income people in public housing (which have apparently given rise to slums, and drug war zones in urban areas) really have no relevance to our residents. Forcing compliance with regulations simply paralyzes the Housing Authorities, arbitrarily denies the benefits of the programs to residents, and can result in findings against the Housing Authorities. All these results only serve to make our programs less available to the very people the programs were intended to benefit.
To make matters worse, HUD staff has been heard to say they have no idea of how to implement such regulations, but are compelled to bring them up and require compliance. HUD staff on occasion has admitted that such regulations clearly have no bearing on our programs, but they are helpless to advocate for us to Washington, helpless even to make official note that the Housing Authority's efforts to work with meaningless regulations are bound to be futile.
The housing needs of the Native, rural residents deserve fuller and fairer attention from the federal government. There needs to be a recognition of our unique circumstances and the dire shortage of decent housing we have/ to better address this basic human need.
If there is any additional information I can provide, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Bessie O'Rourke
cc: Mayor Jeslie Kaleak
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
