You really think the State of Massachusetts would run the local housing authorities well.

I see state owned  building - all across Massachusetts falling down - how would the housing authority be any different.

Reform the local authorities with some simple audit and salary requirements. Problem solved.

this is a case of the media driving the argument. look at the small towns and suburbs for effectiveness and integrity. that will be lost to the cronyism and influence of the larger cities and burbs in the region. smaller towns elect their housing authority commissioners. granted, many towns don't give a hoot about the policies, and voters will cast for a familiar name or a friend. but - there are some very good examples of integrity and good intentions in the smaller authorities. tell me: does greenfield have to be under the sway of springfield or holyoke? brookfield under worcester? great barrington under pittsfield?  by regionalizing, the boards will become even more political, and the smaller towns will not be heard of again. further - what happened to respect for the authority of the electorate? will governor patrick just stick a finger in the eyes of the voters? will chapter 121B just be trashed? these questions need to be answered. i think the state needs a different and less cozy attitude toward the LHA's, with a set of rules for boards and staff that demand professionalism and accountability. and it is possible to have state staff sufficient to monitor adherence without a huge increase in spending.

Do us all a favor and start fazing out all this state and federal housing development 5% a year and before we no it it is all gone. Maybe some elderly and disabled housing but let evryone else go on the open market!!!!!!!!

If the Legislature doesn't vote in favor of this there should be public outcry. I'm sick and tired of reading about the inefficiencies, corruption and cronyism that exists in the public sector. Unlike the private sector where, if you don't evolve with the times, you go out of business, inefficiencies in the public sector's providing services just continue to go on unabated eating up valuable tax dollars. That's not to say there aren't issues in the private sector but in that sector you can't afford to stand still if you want to survive. Those who oversee the public sector seem to be intent on maintaining the status quo, at the expense of we taxpayers. 

This, clearly, is a common sense proposal to restructure an outdated and inefficient system. There will be those who will lose their jobs because of this, many politically connected, but that's no reason not to improve how this important service is overseen and, ultimately, how services are provided to those in need of public housing.  

The reason local officials and housing professionals will oppose Governor Patrick's plan to reorganize local housing authorities, as the Globe warns, is because his plan will fail to improve management of the properties or improve services to residents of public housing. All his plan will do is reorganize reporting lines, by creating a costly additional layer of bureaucracy between the resident and the property, and the people who actually do the work for them and their housing developments. By eliminating local control, and the responsibility that local housing authorities have to meet the needs and address the priorities that are established by residents and local officials at the local level, the Governor's plan will establish a one-size-fits-all management structure that will be a costly failure. It will create a regional management model that eliminates local accountability so, for example, the Pittsfield Housing Authority's properties will be run from Springfield, 50 miles away -- thus eliminating any local control, oversight, accountability or transparency --with staff dispatched to address priorities established in Springfield by a new bureaucracy that has never seen conditions in Pittsfield. Will tenants have to call Springfield if they can't get a repair made, since there will be no local, regular, public housing authority board meetings where they can address any complaints they have? Will the new people in Springfield care about the ideas to improve conditions in Pittsfield generated by the people who actually live in Pittsfield? Or, as with the effect of this model elsewhere, will the regional boards simply be composed bean-counters, beholden to the Governor. Over the next few months housing professionals will oppose Governor Patrick's plan, not because they want to hire cronies, but because they care about their residents and the properties they manage, and believe that the closer management and oversight are to the source, the better things will run. We will also oppose it because we have reform ideas that will actually work. How dare the Globe question the motives of those who oppose this plan. We oppose it because it is a bad plan. Simple as that. There was outrage in the housing community when we learned what Chelsea was paying its Executive Director (and appreciation to Andrea Estes and Sean Murphy for exposing it). But his contract was approved by DHCD (or should have been if DHCD was doing it's job) and the State Auditor didn't raise the issue (as it should have done). If McLaughlin paid himself the salary without approval of his contract he should go to jail. Why isn't his conduct being punished? The last time I checked you can see Chelsea from the DHCD office building, and yet DHCD couldn't keep an eye on an authority run by a guy with a long history of shenanigans. Part of any reorganization plan must address the ability of the Central Office at DHCD to perform its statutory oversight job, and must reverse the budget cuts made there over the years including, for example, eliminating the Springfield DCHD Office that provided services to, and a watchful eye over, the housing authorities in Western Mass, and the locally elected or appointed Commissioners and officials that run them.