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 
 
¶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