The new mixed-income developments that are replacing troubled CHA housing projects have stringent rules for former CHA tenants: to be allowed back, their records must be free of bankruptcies, credit problems or criminal convictions, and they’re required to either work or attend school full time. Drug testing is also required in some cases.
An interesting factoid I picked up on a recent tour of The Arches at Oakwood Shores (replacing the Madden Park, Ida B. Wells and Darrow Homes) and Legends South (replacing the Robert Taylor Homes): all tenants, whether they occupy the public housing units, affordable units or market-rate units that comprise these developments, must submit to drug testing. (There is no drug testing required for buyers.)
“Even market-rate renters have to get drug tested every year,” said Joseph Williams, head of Granite Development Corp., a developer of The Arches, adding that he hasn’t encountered much resistance to this requirement. Whitney Weller, VP of Michaels Development Company, which is developing Legends along with Brinshore Development, agreed, saying, “For most people, it’s not an issue.”
The drug testing requirements were set by so-called “working groups,” made up of developers, CHA resident representatives, community groups and city officials, Williams and Weller told me.
One of the goals of these mixed-income developments is to seamlessly intermingle the public housing, affordable and market-rate components. At both Legends and The Arches, the buildings are hybrids of all three types of housing, Weller and Williams said.
What’s your take: is it fair to require drug testing for tenants who are paying full price for their units? Conversely, is it right to allow market-rate tenants to snort all the coke they want while kicking public housing residents out for the same behavior?
Drug testing, work, school requirements I understand. However, what is this about requiring people to have a past with no blemishes, financial or legal? To me, this sure sounds like they might be going too far. Anyone else think so?
The CHA is asking for a lawsuit. Renters are tested and owners aren’t? If the goal is to protect residents, why not check for past DWI’s also?
OK, Kate – I’m officially confused on a few points.
Do former tenants have a choice of what their records are free of – i.e. bankruptcies, credit problems or criminal convictions? Or does a tenant’s record have to be free of all three, i.e. bankruptcies, credit problems and criminal convictions?
Is the drug testing policy a factoid or, in fact, a fact? There’s a huge difference. And, if it’s a factoid, why report it?
What is it about those working groups that makes them “so-called working groups?”
Isn’t whatever people who have a choice, i.e. market rate tenants, agree to fair by definition?
You say that market rate renters are subject to yearly drug testing but go on to question whether it’s OK (would beOK?) for them to snort all the coke they want. Makes no sense. Is it a hypothetical? And how is your question “conversely” to the previous one? Do you mean “would it be…?”
Is it fair for major newspapers (and many other companies, including Google) to require drug testing of new employees? Is it fair for the University of Chicago to do so (pdf file)?
The CHA has taken on what some have called “a grand experiment.”
It’s an xperiment because it’s an open question whether market rate buyers and tenants will live in a development that’s one-third low income – especially given the awful history of what’s being replaced.
Strong management and careful tenant screening, almost everyone agrees, are critical to the success of these projects.
Am I the only one who sees questioning the fairness of these policies as a cheap and misguided shot, especially in the hypothetical, and especially given the diverse interests represented in their development?
It’s a shame that YoChicago raised this question without giving any background on why the policy exists in these developments. Where’s the fairness in that?
When it comes to background checks on public housing residents, I believe your record has to be clean of certain crimes or bankruptcies in the last three to five years.
I think the CHA folks can stay clear of lawsuits as long as they test EVERYBODY; after all a lot of property owners use/sell drugs too!
Test everybody? Why should someone who is paying market rate be treated as if he or she is on the public dole? Who would actually want to pay market rate for that kind of treatment?