::::::::
I take no pleasure in being ageist. But look at my profile. I have earned some talking points. This is an essay based on my experience of living in what is called a "project." When I came 9 years ago, it was strictly Senior Housing, meaning all who lived here must be on Social Security and that HUD vouchers were available. It is federal law that non-voucher residents have the right to come by paying "fair market value."That's a pretty good deal for me. I have an elevator which I need, all utilities paid, cable-ready access as well as telephone access, plus good security and emergency services. It's reassuring to lie in bed with an ailment, knowing I can "pull the cord" day or night and be helped to an ambulance. I used it once with a severe nosebleed which, if still in my house, could have been curtains for me.
The building was constructed in 1976 by a Knoxville real estate firm. Until recently, that firm had a contract to oversee it. However, Section 8 rules have changed since 2000. While Mel Martinez was in charge of HUD, laws were made to make block grants to states. We are now under the supervision of a Tennessee housing authority. When US law mandated that Section 8 housing be slanted toward rural areas, it was also necessary to divide a state according to poverty statistics.
We were the least impoverished as the City of Maryville floated a bond to make us a "project." Maryville already had one Tower which it built in 1986. Being on the "better" side of poverty, our building needed to make improvements equal to 25% of what it cost to be turned over to Maryville. We got a new diesel generator which was definitely needed, a sprinkler system mandated by new state laws, and a "solarium" which is beautiful to look at and used little.
Does any of this mean anything to my fellow residents? Not really. The rule is that an occupant pays no more that 30% of adjusted income for rent and the US government, through block grants to the state, will pay the rest. In the 80s it was popular lore that to get into public housing one needed to have practically no assets, thus the "spending down " phenomenon. Seniors would deed their houses to children and put their bank accounts out of reach. It was a sweet deal, especially if they trusted their children. When the place was in the process of being a "project" I was asked to apply for a voucher. It was then I found out I could reduce my monthly charge through a complicated formula. It worked especially well during the dry years of Bush stock market woes. I ultimately was allowed to keep my own scheme, however. What I would have gained in savings would have been small in comparison to the hassle of annual oversight.
Probably only one other person is here under fair market rules. We don't drive. Many of the hundred plus residents do. When the parking lot was made it was assumed that most would not have cars. However, now the stalls on a first-come, first-accepted, no-cost basis are filled with newer models. Everyone complains about lack of space for visitor parking.
I mention this because I warn anyone considering "affordable housing" that rules change. It's always been so. I remember how places like Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago are now history. I'll be watching what Barrack Obama has to say, since he met such issues in Altgeld Gardens. Current rules seem to be less inner-city friendly.
I am glad I'm here, but must be cautious. If we are not able to claim an independent lifestyle, we must leave. That involves all the variables any octogenarian faces. So far I can foresee hiring considerably more help than I now use as compared to opting for a corporate assisted -living facility. As long as I and my pacemaker can, we'll be sitting here, communing with a great group of world citizens.
