Marin County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
Golden Gate Village The Clock is Ticking Report Date: May 17, 2018
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
The buildings at GGV have suffered from a severe accumulation of deferred maintenance due to lack of sufficient funding from HUD for decades.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
, the Marin Housing Authority should create and communicate an accelerated timeline, against which progress can be measured, for the rehabilitation of GGV based upon approved Scenario B. This timeline should include milestones for the selection of a developer, the completion of a development plan, a plan for funding, the submission of a RAD application, and the beginning of construction.
F2
The buildings and systems are deteriorating and may eventually require wholesale replacement if there is no intervention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
, the Marin Housing Authority should create and communicate an accelerated timeline, against which progress can be measured, for the rehabilitation of GGV based upon approved Scenario B. This timeline should include milestones for the selection of a developer, the completion of a development plan, a plan for funding, the submission of a RAD application, and the beginning of construction.
F3
A scenario for development (Scenario B) has been created by CVR Associates and approved by the Marin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The CVR scenario relies upon a RAD conversion, which is a competitive application, for which the likelihood of success is unknown and with current planned budget cuts likely to be highly sought after by many public housing agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Marin Housing Authority should proceed to develop alternative financial plans, as the RAD conversion and other aspects of the plan envisioned by the consultants carries great risk in terms of financial execution.
F5
The CVR Associates scenario has substantial financial uncertainties and identifies at least a $19M gap even if successful.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Marin Housing Authority should proceed to develop alternative financial plans, as the RAD conversion and other aspects of the plan envisioned by the consultants carries great risk in terms of financial execution.
F6
GGV is vital to Marin County based upon historical significance and the fact that it is the only family public housing in Marin.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Marin has been declared the least racially diverse county in the State.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
GGV is part of Marin City, one of the more racially diverse areas in Marin.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Given current housing trends in Marin it is unlikely that residents would be able to relocate in the County if GGV is gone.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
There is a fear of displacement by some residents of GGV stemming from a mistrust of public programs and a history of failure in other communities for public housing.
Related Recommendations (4)
R4
The Marin County Board of Supervisors should proceed immediately to engage an established firm with experience in resolving mistrust issues who can work to create an atmosphere of trust between the residents of GGV and the Marin Housing Authority.
R5
The Marin County Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the Marin Housing Authority and GGV residents, should develop high priority programs that go beyond the housing needs of the community. These include job programs, a strong commitment to youth in the area, and help in establishing local leadership on issues that involve the GGV community.
R6
Although there are provisions in the law, and assurances in the plan to provide certain rights to tenants, the Marin Housing Authority should pass a binding resolution addressing GGV tenants’ rights to remain in GGV during and after renovation and what it means to be a tenant in “good standing.”
R7
MHA should develop HUD compliant but compassionate best practice programs to assist residents in resolving the issues such as being over-housed, off-lease, or in rent arrears to minimize displacement as GGV residents transition to new housing.
F11
The efforts of SF Hope provide a model for a successful revitalization that Marin can use in its own efforts.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The success of SF Hope was based on the establishment of a mayoral office appointee to work in concert with the San Francisco Housing Authority in order to coordinate rehabilitation of these communities.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The County’s leadership has shown a lack of urgency as regards the deteriorating property at GGV.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
, the Marin Housing Authority should create and communicate an accelerated timeline, against which progress can be measured, for the rehabilitation of GGV based upon approved Scenario B. This timeline should include milestones for the selection of a developer, the completion of a development plan, a plan for funding, the submission of a RAD application, and the beginning of construction.
R2
, the Marin County Board of Supervisors should appoint and empower a coordinator independent of the Marin Housing Authority to lead the efforts to improve GGV in conjunction with the Marin Housing Authority and other agencies. These would include the physical construction and social programs at GGV as well as the coordination of public and private resources.