FACTS: - AHFC
(Austin Housing Finance Corporation) held Ms. Chambers liable for Federal Loan Funds that AHFC NEVER turned loose of from
its OWN escrow account.
- AHFC did
NOT release even a dime toward the Chambers' home.
- The City of Austin kept the federal funds; yet required Ms. Chambers to abide by the terms of the loan as if funds were disbursed and her home rehabilitated.
- In fact:
the City of Austin went so far as to create loan servicing documents that suggested the Chambers' home was completed;
funds disbursed; and that Chambers was 'repaying' the loan per the terms of the contract.
- In fact:
the City of Austin enforced the terms of repayment of this so-called (non) 'loan' by imposing
a lien with Power of Sale
against the Chambers Property for 6.5 years.
- As
part of the loan terms:
- Under threat
of foreclosure the City of Austin required that Ms. Chambers and
her toddler reside in the home for 6.5 years, in spite of the fact that the City had
knowledge that the home was a Fire Hazard and was severely contaminated with hazardous waste as a result of the City of Austin's Contractor's actions.
- City of Austin prohibited Ms. Chambers from selling,
renting or refinancing her home
(thereby prohibiting her from pulling equity out to repair the damages caused to her home
by the City of Austin and its contractor).
- The fact is:
- AHFC kept its Federal grant money;
- the City of Austin abandoned the Chambers project,
- The
City of Austin NEVER rehabbed the Chambers Home (but rather destroyed it and abandoned
it, leaving it to dilapidate for years); and
- The City of Austin NEVER disbursed the federal
grant funds from its own AHFC escrow account toward the Chambers home.
QUESTIONS: - WHAT status did the City of Austin actually report the Chambers Project to the Federal
Government? (i.e. completed?; abandoned?; delayed?)
- WHY
do loan servicing records reflect that funds were applied to the Chambers Project, when in fact not even a dime was released
from the AHFC escrow account?
- WHY do loan
servicing documents (managed by 2 separate companies) reflect differing activity on the same loan?
- Since the
City of Austin alleges that their records reflect to have 'rehabbed' the Chambers Project (per Assistant City Manager
David Lurie's written words), then
- WHERE are
the Certificates of Completions; the Client surveys; the Close-Out Reports; etc for Chambers Project?
- WHY did AHFC hold Ms. Chambers to the terms
of loan repayment for funds that AHFC NEVER turned loose of?
- HOW IS THIS NOT LIKE BANKER FRAUD?
- WHERE did that Federal Grant Money really go?
- WHAT did AHFC really do with those funds?
- HOW is this any different and any less criminal than a bank manufacturing documents as if it released funds to a client when
indeed it did not and instead kept the funds for itself?
- Show us the paperwork.
Show us what AHFC reported to the Federal Government.
- HOW
does the City of Austin explain the FORGERY of Ms. Chambers' signature on a CoA
contract document?
- HOW does the City of Austin explain alleging to
have passed inspection on electrical
work that actually posed a fire hazard?
- HOW does the City of Austin (AHFC; NHCD) justify demanding payment for 'work' that was not done
or was done shoddily?
- WHY won't the City of Austin answer our questions? -- The
Silence is deafening and makes a profound statement in and of itself.
- WHY
haven't Public Officials answered our questions of Forgery, Fraud, Un-accounted for Federal Funds and other possible
criminal allegations per requirements
of Title 18 USC?
_________________________________________________________________
The City & County continued to award contracts to the same contractor: - who was found via a court ruling
summary judgment to be in breach of contract for abandonment;
- who billed for 'work' that was either not done
or not done to code; and
- who
alleged that electric 'work' had passed inspection, when in fact it
was a fire hazard.
- WHY did
the City of Austin and Travis County continue to award this contractor additional Home 'Rehabilitation' contracts
for approximately another 10 years?
- WAS the
Health & Safety of additional homeowners; families;
clients of the City of Austin & Travis County home 'rehabilitation' programs compromised as a result, like the
Health & Safety of the Chambers Family was?
A court settlement was recently
concluded (March 2009) regarding a contract between the same contractor and Travis County involving a Senior Citizen's
home in May 2006: In May
2006, this same CoA / TC contractor (who damaged the Chambers home) allegedly
caused extensive water damage to a senior citizen's home via Travis County's 'affordable' housing 'rehab'
program. - The homeowner,
who was 89 years old at the time, was allegedly consequently displaced from her home for 14 months as a result
of the alleged damages caused by the CoA / TC contractor.
- The Homeowner was
91 before she could move back home as a result of the alleged damages caused by the CoA / TC contractor.
- A couple weeks after the initial damages (May 2006), apparently, Travis County
Commissioners Court nonetheless awarded this same contractor another contract for the same type of work, regardless.
QUESTIONS: - Considering the extensive documentation that Ms. Chambers
had previously and persistently presented to the City of Austin, regarding this contractor's substandard 'workmanship':
- WHY did the City of Austin
and Travis County continue to award this contractor additional contracts for an additional decade?
- HOW many other homes and lives were put in Harm's
Way?
- SHOULDN'T
the extensive damages caused to the Senior Citizen's home in May 2006 have been avoided IF CoA & Travis County
had taken heed & enforced accountability against this contractor in the first place? and
- COULDN'T Travis County taxpayers therefore have saved
money by avoiding the subsequent jury trial which later ensued against this Travis County / City of Austin contractor?
The same municipal employees who managed the Chambers Family project still
manage these programs. - HOW many more families have or will be affected by their (mis)management?
- WHAT will the City of Austin and Travis County do NOW to assure the Health
and Safety of ALL these previous home 'rehabilitation' program clients/
The same
entity(ies) that (mis)managed the previous housing programs plan to create and implement new programs. - WHY put the same people in charge with our money when they have yet to answer
to pre-existing questions of Fiduciary
& Fiscal Accountability; and questions of Criminal Nature?
- SHOULDN’T the concerns from the previous projects be reconciled before new funds/new
programs distract from the pre-existing questions of mis/mal/nonfeasance?
- SHOULDN’T the "leak" be fixed before the "new sink" goes
in"?
The City enforced the terms
of a “loan” as if the project were completed & funds disbursed; yet in actuality, the
project was abandoned and no $ was disbursed. - WHAT was the status reported to the Federal Government
regarding the Chambers Family CoA home 'rehabilitation' project reported to the Federal Government?
- WHERE did the Federal funds in the AHFC escrow account
and earmarked for the Chambers' project really go?
- WHY did AHFC (Austin Housing Finance Corporation) hold the Chambers Family liable
for “loan” Funds that AHFC never relinquished to the Chambers project? (no Funds were applied to their home. No
funds were disbursed from the AHFC account).
- WHY do
different loan servicing documents contradict the loan activity for the Chambers project?
- HAS
The City accurately recorded project survey reports?
- ARE performance profiles/scores for contractors & participating jurisdictions accurate?
- IS the status of a failed project recorded IF the contract is dissolved?
OR is it as if it never existed?
- CAN dissolving such a contract artificially inflate a City’s & Contractor’sperformance score profile?
The City can foreclose IF the program participant fails to fulfill the residence requirement (requirement sometimes
spans 10 years). - DOES
the City get to foreclosure on families’
homes IF a client becomes deceased, moves into a convalescent home, or their home
either burns down or succumbs to natural disaster in let's say the 9th year of their loan term? Program participants
are often Senior Citizens.
The City can foreclose IF their home is not maintained
to code. - HOW can
a client fulfill their responsibility IF the City's
contractor performed substandard work in the first place; AND the city passed inspection on it anyway?
- WHY have our public officials not responded? - particularly if Title 18 U.S.
code mandates it?
___________________________________________________________________ QUESTIONS: HUD Group Complaint:
(click to go to HUD Group Complaint actual webpage) Q:
DID City of Austin inspectors pass code-item work that was actually in violation of code?
Q: WHY
do the City of Austin officials appear to be unconcerned by the apparent misrepresentations of some of its widely used contractors;
its representatives of Austin Housing Finance Corporation and Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development?
Q:
WHY do City of Austin Officials appear unconcerned about the potential compromised Health and Safety of 100's of previous housing clients? Q:
IS the City of Austin applying more than one loan; and additional Federal Tax dollars
more than once to the same project, in order to cover-up the City of Austin's deficiencies from the intitial project?
In other words, is one federally-funded loan program (LeadSmart) covering up the lack of oversight from another City of Austin federally
funded loan program (Single Family Loan Program) -- Twice the Federal tax dollars going half the distance of what the Public
commited them for?. Q: Duplication
& Waste: ARE the costs of these 'Repeat' jobs being
passed on to the HomeOwners, the taxpayers, other nonprofits and more than once to the Federal Government? Q: HAS the City of Austin mis-reported the status of failed & abandoned projects to
the HUD and the Federal Government? Has the City of Austin reported any incompleted projects as 'completed successes'? Q: HAVE the contracts accociated with failed projects typically been dissolved; rather than reported? - If so, DOES
a dissolved contract nullify a participating jurisdiction's requirement to report the status of the project?
- DOES this practice artificially inflate the City of Austin and
its contractors' performance profile scores, and thereby produce a false progress/accomplishment report?
.... Q: ARE Consumers being victimized by the misuse of
our own tax dollars via questionably-managed HUD housing programs?
_________________________________________________________ QUESTIONS: What it Means to YOU:
As of today (2009), some of the same CoA inspectors, project managers and other public officials, who either: - alleged
to have passed inspection on the electric 'work' that was later discovered to be a fire hazard; or who
- apparently turned a blind eye with regard to:
- the same contractor's violations;
- lead-based paint interim controls and the subsequent contamination of a client(s)' home(s) --
These same public officials continue to oversee new projects
and new housing & redevelopment programs that are currently in the works today.- HOW many other
homes and lives have been / or will be put in Harm's Way?
- HOW many other families have been / or will be victims of the apparent arbitrary / capricious pass/fail practices
of City of Austin's Inspection Department?
- With regard to the City Council's recent
ordinance approval of the City of Austin's Point of Sale Energy Audits, HOW will these apparent practices of selective code
enforcement / interpretation affect future HomeOwners who wish to sell their homes?
- WHAT will the City of Austin and Travis County do
NOW in order to safeguard the Civil
Liberties; and the Health & Safety of its
former and future clients and HomeOwners?
IF pre-existing
issues/questions regarding fiduciary, fiscal
& criminal allegations (i.e. forgery, un-accounted for federal funds) remain unresolved with regard to the City
of Austin; and IF additional subsidies are given to the same entities who mismanaged
previous programs, THEN, We ask the following questions: - COULD these new programs (in the absence
of genuine accountability of previous subsidies / previous programs) be misused by those in charge, potentially enhancing further displacement of additional
families; homeOwners; and small businesses?
- WHY should the Public entrust additional tax money to the same people / entities
when previous questions regarding previous programs remain unresolved?
- WHAT WILL the City of
Austin and Travis County do NOW to demonstrate its commitment to the Public and to genuine Accountability [for example: will CoA / TC refer
our questions, which involve allegations that are criminal in nature (i.e. forgery and un-accounted for Federal Housing funds)
to the U.S. Attorney]?
B.
Are Federal Tax Dollars Suppressing Local Un-Accountability?: - As a matter of practice, DOES
the City of Austin use Federal grant funds from one program (i.e. LeadSmart) to cleanup
/ cover-up the deficiencies (including possible criminal actions) from another one
of its Federally-subsidized programs (i.e. HUD's Single Family Loan Program)
-- twice the federal subsidies
for a fraction of their intended commitment? ....
- (Of course, another question
is whether official decisions might be used in order to apply a portion from the new Federal Stimulus Funds for the same purpose; or in a similar matter.)
Are Local Tax Dollars
Suppressing Local Corruption?: A protracted situation persisted
for over a decade, altering the family's lives and livelihoods and transforming the original $17K 'rehabilitation' cost into a repair nightmare that was last bid for over $86K. Early on, in 1996/'97,
the City of Austin estimated the subsequent repair costs from the City Contractor's abandonment at approximately $38K. In July 1997, the homeowner offered to settle damages
for $25K. Instead, over the course of the next decade,
the City of Austin City Council authorized no less than $177K
in taxpayer money to hire private legal counsel in order to suppress the client's legal claims / suppress the City's
questionable practices. Likewise, in 2008 the City of Austin
exercised a similar tactic when it hired private outside legal counsel to tell Austin Voters what to vote for with regard
to Domain Subsidies / Proposition II. - WHY did City Council and the Mayor use voter's tax dollars to propagandize an election topic and tell voters
what to vote on?
- WHY does the Austin City City
Council authorize so much local tax money to apparently evade paying a fraction of the cost it would originally have taken to heed Public Interests? What do they have to hide?
HOMESTEAD INCENTIVES
OR CREATIVE EMINENT DOMAIN?
Based on the information received
and reviewed by A.L.M.A. and other organizations; and in the interest of the City of Austin's previous Homestead Preservation Initiatives: - (contrary to advertisement) WAS the City's
objective to remove targeted people from targeted redevelopment areas?
- If so, was
the 'people-removal' a 'success'?
- OR WAS the City of Austin's objective to retain and enhance
affordability for existing and incoming residents (as advertised)?
- If so, ISN'T IT TIME for a serious systemic review?
Serious questions about the City of Austin's
practices remain unresolved and involve possible violation of Federal Criminal Statutes for example: - What will Travis County and the City of Austin officials do NOW to address these concerns about possible systemic
abuse?
|
