In large part, Madeline Rogero's letter and my article are attempting to make the same point. My purpose in writing "Following a CAPER" was to explain why an annual report (The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report) released for public comment was unhelpful to the point of being misleading in gauging the city's housing efforts over the past year.
Certainly, there were examples in the report where the city met or exceeded its targets, and Rogero named them; but in eight of 11 target areas—and almost all the areas geared towards helping low- to moderate-income renters—those goals were missed, some by 50 percent or more.
Again, as the story pointed out, that is not to say that the goals were not met through other fund initiatives, such as EZ funds, and Rogero is correct to reiterate this point. Considering the imminent expiration of EZ funding, this is exactly what should have happened. The line "Presented a choice between turning in an incomplete, confusing report and losing millions in funding, the city chose the former" was meant to convey this point, but it could be misleading in so far as the report, from the city standpoint and as mandated by HUD, was complete.
The story should not have given the impression that Rogero, the city, or the non-profits the city works with to provide affordable housing were delinquent in their duties during a very difficult fiscal and housing year; rather, that this report was not helpful in understanding what they had accomplished.