Parish
Is SCIP 1 Vision Being Fulfilled?
RECEIVED Tue., Sept. 2, 2003
Two articles in the current Chronicle mention SCIP I: Jessica Chapman's piece ["Hard Luck in Heritage Heights," Aug. 29] leads me to infer that SCIP I may never have intended to supply low-income housing. Amy Smith's piece ["The ARA Faces the Music"] describes how SCIP I acquisitions form a core of ongoing Urban Renewal projects. Neither article answers a crucial question: On what basis was the SCIP I land "freed up" from those who formerly owned/occupied it and handed it over to SCIP I? My understanding is that when HUD and/or Low Income Tax Credit criteria are employed for this purpose (as Chapman indicates was the case), then accountability exists. Those acquiring the land/property were obliged fully to intend to use it for the purpose of supplying low-income housing.
If the Austin Revitalization Authority, allegedly committed to Urban Renewal without gentrification, is now capitalizing on SCIP I acquisitions (as Smith indicates is the case), is ARA somehow fulfilling SCIP I's original low-income housing commitments? How, exactly? What other profits are being realized from SCIP I, and by whom?
Another thing I infer from both articles is that some people I have always admired and respected may possibly have been involved in feeding at the trough of profitable racist gentrification in Austin via SCIP I and similar projects. This would sadden me deeply. But it would not deter me from exposing the fact. Those with whom I stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the larger fight against very dark forces at this time, are, like me, seriously incapacitated if we have to employ one arm constantly to sweep our own filth under the carpet. The opposition doesn't have this problem. Degeneracy defines them.
If the Austin Revitalization Authority, allegedly committed to Urban Renewal without gentrification, is now capitalizing on SCIP I acquisitions (as Smith indicates is the case), is ARA somehow fulfilling SCIP I's original low-income housing commitments? How, exactly? What other profits are being realized from SCIP I, and by whom?
Another thing I infer from both articles is that some people I have always admired and respected may possibly have been involved in feeding at the trough of profitable racist gentrification in Austin via SCIP I and similar projects. This would sadden me deeply. But it would not deter me from exposing the fact. Those with whom I stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the larger fight against very dark forces at this time, are, like me, seriously incapacitated if we have to employ one arm constantly to sweep our own filth under the carpet. The opposition doesn't have this problem. Degeneracy defines them.
David Weiner
