LHT: If you could carve out the plans for the placement of 20 formerly incarcerated individuals from the DHA’s program, would you be on board with the battered women/children and the veterans moving in?

Wakefield: I would not be "on board" with anything – even with "carve outs" of certain types of individuals from the programs without getting a great deal more information from the DHA and input from the community (which has been completely lacking in the case of Lake Highlands.)

Also necessary are specific, legally enforceable commitments from the city, DHA, the property owner and manager about exactly how these programs will be run and overseen. These obligations would have to be enforceable over the entire period of the program and should provide for specific individuals to be personally liable for defaulting on these obligations.

LHT: What is your solution for providing housing for these individuals who would otherwise be homeless?

Wakefield: The solution, in addition to getting as many charitable organizations as possible to help, is to get these programs placed in areas that are more likely to provide an environment for success. This means placement in the areas I've described previously. The city could and should fight this if it has to. Frankly, I think there is more danger to the city in acceding this type of unwise, poorly planned proposal.

LHT: With the Walker Consent Decree in mind, to your knowledge, is there any way for the city to fight DHA plans without being exposed to another federal lawsuit?

Wakefield: The Walker Consent Decree resulted from consistently placing affordable housing development in the same areas of the city time after time. DHA is trying, for some reason, to take what they thought was the easy way out by plopping another program that nobody is likely to want in the same areas of the city that are already burdened.

LHT: How do you feel it appropriate (what process and controls should be in place) to hold DHA and all its vendors accountable for their supervision of these 70 individuals?

Wakefield: In my experience, the best way to hold DHA and its vendors accountable will be to provide for an expedited complaint mechanism with serious monetary penalties and program cancellation for defaults, along with personal liability for persons in authority.

LHT: Tuesday night at the LHAIA presidents meeting, Councilman Allen encouraged dialogue and improved relations between LH neighbors and Permanent Supportive Housing sponsors by entering into a "Good Neighbor Agreement" whereby mutual expectations are put in writing and reviewed quarterly.

Do you agree with this method/approach?

Wakefield: A "Good Neighbor Agreement" approach is not something that is likely to be effective and, most importantly, it seems to assume that these programs are in fact "done deals," which they are not.

I think it is completely ridiculous for these programs to be announced in the newspaper, supposedly as a "surprise" to our City Councilman, and then be described by him as "done deals" without any community input and without any consideration of the many facts that make these proposals very likely to be unsuccessful, as well as the additional burden they represent on already burdened neighborhoods.

There is a lot more I, as well as others in the affected neighborhoods, would like to say – and will say. Stay tuned, and remember, these proposals aren't "done deals.”

What very much needs to happen is for the Dallas Housing Authority, the mayor and everyone else involved to announce either a cancellation of the proposals, or at the very least a "hold" on them, as was done with the proposal in Oak Cliff.