The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners rejected a proposed transfer of the Gilpin Court public housing development to its own nonprofit subsidiary in a 5–4 vote Wednesday night.
The RRHA proposed moving ahead with approving the transfers, which it said would happen in stages, to its board despite not having a final plan for redevelopment of the city’s oldest public housing complex. The Richmond Development Corporation, which is owned by RRHA, would take control of the properties.
The move to transfer stewardship of Gilpin Court's 781 affordable housing units was first reported by the Richmond Times–Dispatch earlier this week.
Michael Syme, a housing attorney invited to Wednesday’s meeting by RRHA CEO Stephen Nesmith, said the authority was trying to secure Section 8 tenant protection vouchers in bulk before finalizing redevelopment plans for Gilpin.
Syme added that RDC could use the RRHA board’s approval in its application for the vouchers to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the program.
“There’s a new administration in DC. It is cutting programs, it is cutting jobs, it is cutting money,” Syme said.
By securing those vouchers now, Syme said RDC could move forward with staggered redevelopments as funding is secured.
As previously reported, the yearslong redevelopment of Richmond’s public housing complexes has stopped and started multiple times. Citywide, Gilpin and seven other public housing courts have been labeled “Priority Neighborhoods” in the Richmond 300 plan.
The proposal was controversial among public commenters and some of the housing authority’s board members.
The Rev. Donté McCutchen of Greater Mt Moriah Baptist Church in Gilpin spoke against the plan, saying he wanted more public outreach before the board made its decision.
“I want to support the processes that we need in our community, but I cannot do it without clear communication or inclusion,” McCutchen said.
Board member Barrett Hardiman said he wanted to see a draft application for HUD before approving the transfers.
“I’m not gonna say that this resolution, on its face, at a point in time is wrong,” Hardiman said. “But it’s premature now.”
Ultimately, the board narrowly defeated the proposal — members Hardiman and Kyle Elliott said they didn’t want to vote on a voucher application they hadn’t had a chance to review.
