tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post3169561868365233942..comments2023-10-10T03:39:50.342-05:00Comments on A Little Urbanity: Project Homestead: The Inside Story You Haven't HeardUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-82899212986945524072008-05-28T11:13:00.000-05:002008-05-28T11:13:00.000-05:00I worked for PH during this time and was very dish...I worked for PH during this time and was very disheartened by the comingling of funds I witnessed. However, I felt that the core/origination of the company was a great one and no one has even come close to contributing to the community on this level. Your article was great and well-deserved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-41500708698284932302007-10-15T19:16:00.000-05:002007-10-15T19:16:00.000-05:00Excellent work A++. I like your new masthead also...Excellent work A++. I like your new masthead also.Angie Smitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11600486394039227276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-89772001800701958212007-10-15T14:45:00.000-05:002007-10-15T14:45:00.000-05:00No argument with anything you wrote, Joe.Some of P...No argument with anything you wrote, Joe.<BR/><BR/>Some of PH's partners, like Beacon Management, are outstanding organizations.<BR/><BR/>The point of my post, however, was to show that HCD ran -- and runs -- a pretty tight ship regarding the spending of city money on low-income housing.David Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13251439852685796681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-43880336213092936082007-10-15T14:34:00.000-05:002007-10-15T14:34:00.000-05:00David, I understand there was good mixed in with t...David, I understand there was good mixed in with the bad.<BR/><BR/>But there are a couple of other things to remember. First, the city was not the only source of PH's funding. It also received monies from the state and federal governments, respectively, and those monies could have been stolen from the poor in addition to the city monies stolen from the poor.<BR/><BR/>Second, we are told that funds were commingled, and the records are poor to non-existent. Can we really know how much was stolen?<BR/><BR/>Third, there were quite a number of other improprieties other than the actual stealing of money intended for the poor.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, in addition to board members being negligent, there were also accountants involved. And those accountants certainly should have seen what was going on, and erected mechanisms to prevent it.<BR/><BR/>Joe GuarinoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-82536598832778877512007-10-15T12:09:00.000-05:002007-10-15T12:09:00.000-05:00As someone who was familiar with Homestead's work,...As someone who was familiar with Homestead's work, thanks for saying something that needs to be said. You're right about the excellent work that the organization and Rev. King did for our community. I managed AT&T's corporate philanthropy in the Carolinas in the 90s, and, along with several of our major corporate customers in the Triad, we provided both volunteers and financial support to Homestead. In the course of our work, I had an opportunity to get to know Rev. King. He was an amazing character -- bright, quick witted and a very effective leader. He and his organization put a lot of low-income families into their own, solidly built homes. Thanks to the rigorous home-ownership course that was required to get a mortgage from Homestead, the default rate, as you noted, is low. He was a true visionary, and his work was changing the status quo in Greensboro. <BR/><BR/>Like many visionary leaders, though, he wasn't a great operational manager. When it came to accounting and compliance with governmental rules and regulations, I have no doubt that Rev. King was in way over his head. He didn't get the support he needed from his board, and there was apparently no one on his staff who could keep the books and provide strong direction to both Rev. King and the board about what they could and couldn't do with the money. Ultimately, it was Rev. King's responsibility to provide that kind of leadership or to find someone who could. No argument there. But neither he nor the good work of his organization deserve the kind of one-sided treatment they've received.David Arnekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01600849761985742326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-60109198736035438702007-10-14T06:52:00.000-05:002007-10-14T06:52:00.000-05:00It IS a great post, David. Thanks for doing it.Do...It IS a great post, David. Thanks for doing it.<BR/><BR/>Don, you know as well as I that if the city had produced a similar accounting, it would be dismissed as part of some conspiracy to cover someone's *ss.<BR/><BR/>HoggardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9159479.post-23208501663284134212007-10-13T21:28:00.000-05:002007-10-13T21:28:00.000-05:00Great work..."Squandered" is still a problem; but ...Great work...<BR/><BR/>"Squandered" is still a problem; but as you point out, this is being handled nationally and hopefully locally. If a person serves on a board or signs off on a report, they van and should be held responsible.<BR/><BR/>We should not have to rely on private citizens to produce this type of report.Don Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17099575661355736864noreply@blogger.com