These Comments/Complaint were submitted to show the Somerville, MA Department of Strategic Planning and Community Development ("OSPCD") a sampling of barriers that continue to deny individuals with disAbilities equal, fair and usable opportunities to be employed or otherwise participate within these HUD-funded Somerville programs. The comments in this 7-page document are structured as follows: page 1: Introduction. pages 2-4 Housing. page 5: Creating a More Decent Environment. page 6: Expanding Economic Opportunities. page 7: Conclusion. The City's response came after much prodding, and was merely a document of denial, containing misleading information as well. see City's response at: http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/somerville-ospcd-response-cdbg-2010-complaint

1. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
Overall, the City of Somerville continues to operate and create new HUD-fnded programs that
are inaccessible and unusable for the 19.5% of residents over the age of 5 who are disAbled.1
The City of Somerville continues to demonstrate a failure to meaningfully assess critical needs of
minority low income residents, and to program HUD funds with activities to meet these crucial
community development and housing needs. (See CFR 24570.2 and CFR 24 part 570.) These
comments especially note this failure with regard to families with disAbilities, a significant
minority in Somerville, and who comprise over 30% of the below-poverty population of
Somerville.2
These comments provide only a sampling of issues to demonstrate how, for each of the three
HUD National Objectives, the City fails to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity, fails to
expand economic and affordable housing opportunities, and fails to examine and eradicate blight
and substandard environmental conditions for minority- especially disAbility minority- low-
income residents, while using HUD funds.
There exists an urgent and unacknowledged need for the City of Somerville to plan for, and
accomplish an updated and comprehensive Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan immediately in
order to meet its obligations and responsibilities to provide residents with disAbilities inclusive
and equal opportunities within all municipal departments, services and activities.
This writer has requested the City of Somerville to use CDBG funds to accomplish these critical
tasks since 2005, 3 yet the Office of Sponsored Programs and Community Development
(OSPCD) has failed to respond to these urgent community issues in any meaningful way, in direct
violation of HUD's Citizen participation regulations and intent.
Therefore, these comments are also being sent directly to the Board of Alderman leadership in
Housing and Community Development Committee and the Chair of BOA Capital Needs
Committee with an urgent request: Please place an order to OSPCD to read and respond to this
COMPLAINT, in writing, and immediately.
1
2008 ACS. Table S1810. Disability Characteristics. Total population: 75,834 minus population under 5 years (N=
3,968) = 71,866. With a disAbility over 5 years of age: 14,022, or 19.5%.
2
2008. ACS. Table S2201. Food Stamps. See "Disability Status."
3
SEE: http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/cdbgr-city-of-somerville-comments-may-2009-feldman
http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/eis-final-08-cdbg-response
http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/cdbg-recommendations-somerville-ma-from-disabilities-rights-advocate
http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/cdbg-home-recommendations-py0708-city-of-somerville-ma-200720082009eileen-
feldman
http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/cdbg-recommendations-fy06-still-relevant-2009-presentation
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 1 of 7

2. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
I. Housing:
1. The City of Somerville fraudulently certifies that it is affirmatively furthering Fair Housing.
The fact is that residents with disAbilities, are, for the most part, confined to substandard,
environmentally inaccessible housing in poverty-concentration areas of the City; and, the City is
failing to investigate the conditions, analyze current data, or create and implement any plan to
overcome the overwhelming impediments that greet disabled residents every step of the way4.
The City's "updated" 2009 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) is an insubstantial and
ineffective document. It fails to address the critical needs of residents with disAbilities and merely
restates stereotypical and inaccurate assumptions, utilizing more current American Community
Survey data. The detailed response to the AI questionnaire, which was provided by the all-
volunteer Community Access and Inclusion Project, was entirely ignored. That response is found
here: http://www.slideshare.net/eilily/impediments-to-fair-housing-somerville-ma-for-persons-
with-dis-abilities-2009
This 2009 AI carries forward ignorant claims, such as that:
"...most individuals [with disAbilities] have reached retirement and common ailments
associated with aging have set in." (page 12, Somerville AI);
and continues to restate unsubstantiated misconceptions regarding on-the-ground realities for
residents with disAbilities, such as this misapplication of the Census disability questions to define
disAbilities as:
"Many people with disability status are fully functioning and not necessarily impaired by
their disability to gain access to buildings or opportunities for employment." (page 12,
Somerville AI)
The known facts are that
• 76.4% of disAbled residents are not Seniors;
• Somerville's subsidized housing inventory (SHI) contains less than 3% accessible, affordable
rental units5;
• 36% of families on the Section 8 waiting list of the Somerville Housing Authority have at least
one member with at least one disAbility6; and
• families with disabilities represent at least 16% of the public housing waitlist7.
4
see Census 2000 Data Maps, percent of individuals with disAbilities by Block Group, for a clear
visual representation of the poverty concentrations of residents with disAbilities in Somerville, MA,
ages 5 - 21, 21 - 64, and 65 and older.
5
Department of Housing and Community Development Chapter 40B Subsidized
Housing Inventory (SHI) as of September 29, 2009
6
City of Somerville Five Year Consolidated Plan 2008-2013, Section One: Housing, page 36.
TABLE 27: HOUSING NEEDS OF FAMILIES ON SECTION 8 WAITLIST Of 70,200 families, 23,256 self-
identify as Families with Disabilities. There is approximately 10% turnover annually.
7
City of Somerville Five Year Consolidated Plan 2008-2013, Section One: Housing, page 37. Of
total 4,221 families, 684 self-identify as families with disabilities. There is an 11% annual
turnover.
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 2 of 7

3. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
Yet the 2009 AI still carries forward the City of Somerville's lack of knowledge and expertise
capacity to adhere to UFAS and State Architectural Access code with a sense of helpless
resignation, and fails to identify any meaningful action steps to overcome the impediments caused
by a dearth of accessible housing stock. Instead, the City of Somerville , using inaccurate and
unfounded assumptions, and without any foundational cost estimates or baseline architectural
audits or assessments, claims :
"Given that much of Somerville’s housing stock was built prior to 1940, and prior to the
federal laws requiring accessibility, very few units in Somerville are truly accessible and
significant modifications are needed in most buildings to comply with ADA requirements.
Since the provision of accessible units depends on new construction, the city of
Somerville’s capacity to provide these units is very limited as there is very little developable
land in the City and most particularly, during this housing market downturn, a fewer
housing development is occurring in the City."
The fact is, the City's Building Inspectors and designated ADA Coordinator have continually
demonstrated a lack of expertise and knowledge regarding architectural and communications
standards, and have continually allowed programs, rehabilitations and renovations to proceed
without acknowledging and correcting code and regulation violations and without proactively and
progressively monitoring and coordinating municipal efforts to eradicate barriers in a maximally
feasible step-by-step manner.
2. When viewed in its entirety, the City's Fair Housing offices, Special Housing Division offices,
and chosen CHDO are each violation of the ADA and Section 504, by failing to make their
programs readily accessible and usable to residents with disAbilities in the most integrated
manner possible.
a. Regarding the use of HUD HOME funding, the City of Somerville operates its Special Housing
programs and its Fair Housing Commission out of a facility (City Hall Annex) which is not readily
usable and is, in fact, inaccessible, for individuals with mobility, sensory and communications
impairments.
b. The City's chosen Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) is the Somerville
Community Corporation (SCC). The Offices for SCC are not accessible to individuals with mobility
impairments, and the policies and programs of SCC are not operated in a manner that considers
the environmental, cultural, social and economic needs of individuals with physical, sensory and
communications disAbilities, irregardless of race and ethnicity, who should be afforded equitable
representation and employment opportunities at this CHDO. The Executive Director of SCC has
evaded repeated requests to discuss these issues directly, face to face, including the request to do a
walk-through together to review the barriers that meet an individual using a wheelchair, once they
reach the locked door to this organization's offices and find a barely readable sign informing them
to "phone staff inside." Thus, this CHDO is in violation of Section 504 and HUD's regulations at
24 CFR parts 8 and 9.
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 3 of 7

4. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
c. In addition, SCC's completed HOME projects clearly demonstrate a failure to provide an
accessible route connecting all accessible elements to primary function areas, public sidewalks
and transportation.
Below, the Linden Street apartments- 42 units created by SCC in 2002- do not provide sidewalk
accessibility. here, we see the lack of curbcuts surrounding this project.
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 4 of 7

5. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
II. CREATING A MORE DECENT ENVIRONMENT
The City has used a substantial portion of its limited CDBG "ADA Streetscape Improvements"
programming in 2009 in a non-Low/Moderate Income (LMI) area. In 2009, the city used over
$73,000 to improve the driveway for Clarendon Hill Towers, which had just received a loan
commitment of up to $23.3 million from MassHousing in order to renovate and refinance the
property; and used the remainder to improve 2 ramps and one bumpout in a non LMI area:
Burnham and Powder House. This demonstrates a lack of CDBG programming to address the
most critical community needs that have been deferred because of lack of municipal resources.
Meanwhile, the City continues to neglect the crucial need to Self-Assess and create a Transition
Plan for the City's entire inventory of sidewalk facilities; and, with specific relevance to
Somerville's CDBG planning, the crucial need to address sidewalks and crosswalk impediments
within the NRSAs. For example, recent street reconstructions for both Otis and Cross streets
violated the requirements of ADA Standards § 4.1.6(3)(a) and § 4.7 by failing to improve, to the
maximum extent feasible, the sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian amenities. At this
particular location in East Somerville, the sidewalks and crosswalks surrounding the Edgarly
School, and including the bus stops located outside this public school continue to be dangerous,
inaccessible, and wholly unusable for children as well as residents of all ages that have any
balance, sensory, and physical impairments.
Below photo of curbcut at Cross Street at Brook, showing curbcut with running slope of 13.1% (should
not exceed maximum slope of 8.3% and should be a perpendicular, not apex, curbcut).
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 5 of 7

6. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
III. EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
Using CDBG funding, the City of Somerville creates new and inaccessible programs, such as the
Design Annex out of Union Square Main Streets (USMS) program, which, in 2009:
• constructed a new office space containing a mezzanine level that is wholly inaccessible and in
violation of State Architectural Access code at 521 CMR; and
• opened its doors without first addressing the lack of an accessible entrance, accessible routes
from public transportation to the door; accessible common areas, and usable signage at its
facility; and
• In addition, these issues were brought directly to the USMS Director, who dismissed and
ignored them, using the rational that "people with mobility issues have come here and they
haven't complained.
Is the City therefore stating a policy whereby it will attend to, and "hear" information, guidance
and complaints about lack of accessibility and systemic violations of Section 504, the ADA and
HUD regulations at 24 CFR parts 8 and 9-- ONLY if such issues and complaints are brought
forward exclusively by individuals with non-hidden mobility disAbilities?
Below, Union Square Main Street offices are within this facility at 67-70 Union Square. We see the
inaccessible 2-tiered stepped entrance, which has no usable signage to direct people with mobility
disAbilities looking to find a way inside. To the right of the building, behind the stacked chairs, is an
unusable and inaccessible portable lift which currently has an expired temporary certificate.
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 6 of 7

7. City of Somerville COMPLAINT. Submitted during Public comment period for HUD Plan PY10/11
This concludes a sampling of how the City of Somerville, using its HUD Entitlement funding,
carries out programs that exclude one of the largest and lowest income minorities in Somerville:
residents with disAbilities.
I look forward to a timely and direct response to each of these issues and stand at the ready to lead
the City to do the right thing. Please do not procrastinate another moment.
Thank you.
Eileen Feldman
Union Square (Ward 3), Somerville resident
Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project
cc:
At-large Alderman John Connolly, President Board of Alderman FY 10/11
Alderwoman Rebeka Gewirtz, BOA Vice-President and Chair, Housing and Community
Development
At-large Alderman William White, Chair, Capital Planning
At-large Alderman Dennis Sullivan , BOA Housing and Community Development
Alderman Walter Pero, BOA Housing and Community Development Committee
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access & Inclusion Project. Somerville, MA Ward 3. page 7 of 7