Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HUDRAD briefing draws sharp public concern about tenant protections, contractor selection and employee impacts
Summary
City and HUD officials defended the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) as a financing tool to preserve and rehab San Francisco public housing, but residents, tenant advocates and union members raised wrenching concerns about outreach, racial and contractor equity, possible layoffs of Housing Authority staff, and assurances that units would not be demolished or residents displaced.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee held a sustained and often contentious hearing on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentRental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) and the Mayor's Office and Housing Authority plans to use RAD and Section 18 to finance preservation and rehabilitation of public housing.
City witnesses described RAD as a federal tool that shifts a project's subsidy from Section 9 public-housing funding to a project-based assistance contract (similar to Section 8), enabling housing authorities to combine that stable revenue stream with tax-exempt bonds and low-income housing tax-credit equity. HUD Region 9 Administrator Ophelia Bascalle said RAD was created to unlock access to capital markets and to stabilize long-term funding for aging portfolios nationwide.
City estimates presented at the hearing varied by presenter but included references to leveraging roughly $180,000,000 to $500-600,000,000 through a combination of tax-credit equity, debt and public financing to rehab thousands of units; officials described a plan to convert a large portfolio of public-housing sites using 4% low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds and layered Section 18 assistance for additional rental subsidy.
Officials emphasized several resident protections they say the RAD model requires or allows: no rescreening of current residents; no involuntary displacement or demolition within RAD rehab projects (RAD conversions are described by MOHCD as rehab-only with 20-year standards and 99-year ground leases); a centralized wait list with site preferences; codified eviction and grievance protections in leases and ground-lease documents; and tenant engagement efforts. MOHCD and the Housing Authority said developer selection prioritized San Francisco experience and that HUD, lenders and investors also review chosen partners.
Public comment, however, was extensive and sharply skeptical. Hundreds of residents, tenant advocates and housing employees said outreach has been insufficient, argued that residents and workers lacked meaningful input in RFQs and project design, and raised three recurring concerns:
- Tenant protections and transfers: Advocates urged independent resident outreach resources, uniform screening and transfer policies (particularly for emergency transfers such as domestic violence), and codified grievance procedures that cannot be weakened by private managers.
- Employee impacts and job protections: SEIU and Housing Authority employees said up to ~100 of ~250 authority jobs could be affected across two implementation phases; employees sought concrete commitments on job-matching, equal pay/benefits transfers and retraining opportunities.
- Equity and contracting: Speakers including community leaders argued the cityselected developers with inadequate outreach to black-owned firms and asserted the risk of further African-American displacement; some alleged earlier redevelopment patterns would repeat if contracting and hiring did not include clear equity goals and enforcement mechanisms.
Housing Authority commissioners described a CARE initiative (communication, action, resources) to engage employees and residents and to negotiate with unions. MOHCD and HA officials agreed to codify tenant protections in agreements and to return with detailed scopes of work, financing, and outreach plans. Officials also said HUD gave San Francisco extended timelines (18 months) to begin construction because of the portfolio scale.
Whatnext: Supervisors requested follow-up briefings and additional hearings to review the developer RFQ selection, financial feasibility analyses, resident-outreach plans, concrete worker-transition protocols, and options for stronger local oversight such as a joint powers authority or explicit Board role.
