Residents tell Miami-Dade housing committee they are sleeping poorly, face unsafe units and ADA gaps

Multiple residents told the Miami-Dade County Housing Committee on the record that homelessness and poor housing conditions are disrupting lives and that enforcement gaps are leaving people at risk.

At the start of the public-comment period Bernadette Andrews said she was homeless and asked the committee for help finding housing, saying, "I'm homeless... I'm trying again to see if I could really get any help to get me home," and that a prior stroke limits her options.

Yolanda Davis, who gave an address for the record, said neighborhood disturbances are preventing sleep and described people "walk[ing] in and out" of nearby properties; she added that she was not reporting drug sales but said police have not effectively addressed the disturbances.

Sharon Frazier thanked commissioners and staff for outreach but said the unit she was assigned "was not up to par" and asked for continued oversight of property management and better resident orientation to amenities and services. Renida Holmes, speaking for District 5 residents, urged the committee to ensure federal protections for people with disabilities are applied: "making sure that the federal regulations are applied when it comes to ADA," she said, and warned of a gap between Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspections and units being placed into service as public housing shifts toward Section 8.

Chairwoman Bastian said staff, led by Nathan Hogan, had toured sites raised in public comment and promised follow-up. Nathan Hogan, director of Housing and Community Development, told the committee staff is developing a standardized lease and development agreement and said, "we would use that standard agreement for RAD redevelopment," while noting for-sale projects may require different forms.

The record shows repeated calls from residents for clearer enforcement of inspection standards and better responsiveness from property management and police. Several speakers asked staff to follow up directly in the office; the committee accepted public comments and then moved on to procedural business.

The committee did not take any formal policy vote on enforcement or funding during the meeting; follow-up steps noted in the record were staff site visits and continued constituent outreach.

The meeting closed after routine procedural votes; the committee did not set a public timeline in the record for additional enforcement actions.