Feb 9, 2007 3 min read

Regarding the Jan. 28 article, “Zimmerlink addresses inquiry remarks,” the salient point of inquiry to which Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink addressed remarks is obscured in the article. To state it clearly: Fact: Fayette is one of the top three poorest of 67 counties in the state.

Fact: Fayette is one of the top three highest counties in unemployment.

Fact: Public housing is for the poor and unemployed, and millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested with FCHA and its board to provide it.

Fact: The poor and unemployed flock to clean, affordable housing in safe neighborhoods.

Fact: Fayette is an anomaly. FCHA has high vacancy rates even after destroying 25 percent of the units. Statistically it should have high occupancy and non-existent vacancy.

The facts indicate to a reasonable person something is wrong. It would be akin to Brusters offering 5-cent ice cream cones on a hot day and having few takers. In counties where housing authorities and their boards go about their mission properly, people take full advantage of public housing to rebuild their lives and raise their children in a good environment, and the taxpayers do not get ripped off in the process.

Argue the details, make excuses, report “all is well,” but the simple facts remain: the poor are there but they are not buying what FCHA is putting out; after millions spent the results are not there; new leadership and direction is needed.

The mission of public housing is to serve the poor, not pander to the privileged. Those who care for the poor and the good of the community need to stand up and be counted and demand reform.

After spending five years getting into public housing regularly while working at Children and Youth Services and seeing the plight of children there, I for one can not remain silent as the situation only worsens.

Zimmerlink states the mission of FCHA is “to provide safe, decent, sanitary housing to those with low income and some of the FCHA board members have gotten away from the fact.” Therein lies the source of the problem.

Why, then, are such members on the board, and what mission were they appointed to represent? Board members need to either commit to the mission or find another board on which to serve.

The recommendations made by me to the board of commissioners were:

– To call in their appointees for candid discussion of their leadership and direction.

– If possible send in auditors to inspect and examine whether audit recommendations were actually followed.

– Create a community task force of business and social service professionals to monitor and advise the board; and

– Increase the board from five to seven or nine members, to provide ability to study the issues in sub-committee and provide additional oversight.

Barbara Peters

Chalk Hill