Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10STATE9105
2010-01-29 00:17:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ROLNIK ON HER

Tags:  PHUM OHCHR 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0010
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #9105 0290024
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 290017Z JAN 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0000
UNCLAS STATE 009105 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM OHCHR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ROLNIK ON HER
COUNTRY VISIT REPORT TO THE U.S. - GENEVA LOG NUMBER
107-2009

UNCLAS STATE 009105

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM OHCHR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ROLNIK ON HER
COUNTRY VISIT REPORT TO THE U.S. - GENEVA LOG NUMBER
107-2009


1. Summary: The Special Rapporteur on adequate housing
as a component of the right to an adequate standard of
living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this
context, Ms. Raquel Rolnik, has sent the first draft of her
visit to the United States from October 22 to November 8,

2009. We forwarded the report to interagency colleagues for
their review and comments. Mission is requested to send this
response to Ms. Rolnik. This is Geneva Log Number 107-2009.


2. Begin text:

Raquel Rolnik
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the
right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to
non-discrimination in this context
Geneva, Switzerland

Dear Ms. Rolnik,


The United States welcomed your visit and appreciated the
opportunity for constructive dialogue and openness. The
Obama Administration is committed to creating and preserving
affordable housing for the American people.

We have circulated your report to the various government
agencies with whom you met and they will consider it as they
review policies and programs in the various areas addressed
by this report.

Overall comments

The report does not address the many and considerable
positive aspects of housing in the United States, including
in comparison to other countries. While we acknowledge our
shortcomings, the report could point to numerous ways in
which housing in the United States could be considered
exemplary, such as the high rate of homeownership, the high
quality of the vast majority of housing, the high
availability and quality of utility services, and significant
improvements in these and other areas over recent decades.

The report generally sees government policies, particularly
those of the federal government, as the only significant
issue related to housing. This approach does not allow for a
full consideration of the situation given our federal and
free-market system. The report does acknowledge (e.g., p.7
para 13) the large roles of local authorities and the private
sector in housing in the United States, but the report,s
approach and recommendations do not reflect those realities.
The federal government,s role is in fact just a limited part
of the picture of housing in the United States.

As you know, the United States is a signatory, but not a
party, to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, and does not have a binding international

legal obligation under it. We read the report in light of
our international law commitments, and interpret most of its
judgments and recommendations as based on policy preferences
rather than international legal obligations. The report is
correct to raise U.S. obligations under other instruments
such as nondiscrimination obligations under the ICCPR and the
CERD, but its reference to unspecified &human rights
standards8 (p31, para 92) should be clarified. In addition,
its reliance on a General Comment of the ESC Rights Committee
(p24, para 65 at n.56) should clarify that this statement is
from a non-binding interpretation of a treaty to which we are
not a party, although we would agree that the Committee has
expertise and a mandate in this area.

There are numerous small items and typographical errors,
which we imagine you will correct in the editing process and
are generally not addressed here. As one example, the
statement that a majority of low-income households receive
the minimum wage (p.9, para 17) is unsourced and seems
unlikely to be correct.


Following are comments on your report from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.

Comments from HUD,s Office of Public and Indian Housing
(PIH)


GENERAL COMMENTS: The cities selected and the properties
toured could only lead to one conclusion and there seemed to
be no inclination to visit other sites to present a more
balanced view of housing for low income families and
individuals in the United States. In general, the report is
fairly accurate in the laying out the legislative history of
the subsidized housing programs in the country. There could
be more said about the migratory patterns of African
Americans from the South to the urban areas of the North and
West; more about the overall economic trends that affected
jobs and incomes; homeownership patterns; and, much more
about how these factors were significantly affected by the
changes in public education and other social concerns that
affected the same populations.

The report fails to acknowledge the significant investments
made by the federal government (via housing authorities) to
provide public housing on a scale that integrates it into its
surrounding community. While more than 90,000 units of
severely distressed public housing units were demolished, the
Report fails to acknowledge that more than 100,000 units have
been returned to the stock, although not all are affordable
to very low income families and individuals. The Report
strikes no balance between what was and what is today.

See following comments on particular paragraphs in the report:

#22. It is incorrect to imply that housing agencies tried to
compensate for inadequate federal funding by increasing
rents. The Brooke Amendment came into being in the 1960s, so
without a better time reference, this seems to portray
housing providers as trying to make up shortfalls on the
backs of the poor. The Brooke Amendment requires that rents
on federally-assisted affordable housing are 30% of a
household,s adjusted annual income.

#28. Again, only the negatives were highlighted and where
relocation, rights of return, replacement units and other
housing opportunities were incorporated in the redevelopment,
none make this Report. The point lost is did residents get a
variety of options from which to choose. Overwhelmingly, the
answer is &yes8, but not in the cities or in the examples
laid out for her by the advocacy groups who invited her.

#29. The Chicago example of Cabrini-Green represents only a
part of the story. With no indication of any understanding
of the previous conditions or the economics of the
redevelopment deal, the listing of the numbers distorts the
reality. Coupled with the billions of dollars of public and
private investment in Chicago,s Plan for Transformation,
Cabrini-Green is but a small part.

#31. In New Orleans, the demolition of thousands of units
of housing occurred, not just public housing. However, in
New Orleans, the Housing Authority had embarked on a
redevelopment plan which called for the demolition of its
distressed public housing stock long before Katrina hit. The
condition of the housing pre-Katrina was in the condition the
Special Rapporteur now cites in her report as virtually
uninhabitable. Post-Katrina, the units were filled with mold
and mildew, rendering them uninhabitable. Cleaning the units
was impossible since to do so properly meant the destruction
of the walls to ensure that the mold was completely removed.
Allowing residents to occupy such units would have
exacerbated respiratory triggers compromising resident
health.

Iberville even cleaned to its very best is housing that does
not meet current building code. If rehabilitated to meet
that code, the already too small units will not accommodate
more than 1-2 people. In addition, because systems are
embedded in plaster and/or cement walls, renovations will be
more costly than a demolish-rebuild, there will be a natural
loss of units in order to size them according to current
standards, and the structural integrity will be compromised.

More important, there is no mention of the Rental Housing
Assistance offered by HUD to more than 33,000 households so
they could rent affordably in the private market. This
program assisted residents for more than 4 years and
continues to assist about 12,000 eligible families.

#56. The definition of Homeless as used by HUD recognizes
that &on the street or in shelter8 in some ways puts those
at greater risk than those doubled up with others.

#68-71. These sections address thorny issues of balancing
the needs of one with those of the greater community. It
appears as though the Report is suggesting that public
housing is &housing of last resort8
and as such, economic eligibility is the only criteria to be
used. There seems to be no understanding that housing
authorities can ask for mitigating documentation in order to
house a previous offender.

Why should public housing have a different standard for
admissions, lease enforcement and other occupancy rules than
other subsidized housing in the same community?

#72. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been in place
since 2005, so the policies cited in 68-71 do not negatively
target DV victims.

#84. The conditions suggested here indicate lack of
understanding of how housing gets built in cities where there
is no available vacant land and rebuilding on the footprint
is required. No rental production could happen in most
places if this becomes the standard.

#101. See #68-71 above.


From HUD,s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
(FH&EO)


The federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, prohibits housing
discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, familial status, or disability. The UN Special
Rapporteur recognizes the record level of complaints received
and resolved by HUD and our state and local fair housing
enforcement partners is generally supportive of this work.
HUD agrees that, while significant progress has been achieved
over the past four decades of federal housing civil rights
law enforcement, more must be done. For example, in 2009,
President Obama announced that HUD would examine, for the
first time at the federal level, the extent to which
lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people face
discrimination in renting or owning their homes. Moreover,
HUD has announced plans to promulgate and implement a new
federal rule to assist and require local jurisdictions
receiving HUD funding to fulfill their responsibility to
affirmatively further fair housing. HUD,s new emphasis in
this area follows a groundbreaking federal court settlement
that will result in 750 units of new affordable and
accessible housing in areas of low minority concentration one
suburban New York county. HUD is also making the linkages
between housing and health; housing and education; and
housing and life opportunities and creating new measures and
strategies to reduce the effects of discrimination and to
promote housing choice. The UN Special Rapporteur makes
particularly positive note of HUD,s Choice Neighborhoods
initiative.

Implementation of a fair housing mortgage rescue initiative:
HUD is also taking action on foreclosures, particularly with
regard to discriminatory lending. In Fiscal Year 2010,
Congress appropriated $11 million in the Fair Housing
Initiatives Program to assist those families that are most
vulnerable in today,s lending/mortgage crises. The $11
million will be used to educate the public about lending
discrimination, enforce the fair lending requirements of the
Act, and to train investigators to conducting lending
discrimination.

Finally, HUD is also exploring new ways to ensure that
housing is made available for people with disabilities. At
the individual level, disability-related discrimination is
the single most typical complaint received by HUD,s Office
of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity. HUD also reviews
compliance with Section 504 and is promoting the addition of
accessible design features in HUD funded or supported
properties and increasing visitability design features where
feasible for new construction or substantial rehabilitation
projects.
CLINTON