Thanks Keith for your attempt at clarifying my issue. It is, however, far
from the mark. My post rather states that I did not know, nor was I told,
that MCDA was a part of my contracting to build the house. We worked instead
with realtors.
To the point, it has been stated by the firm that built the house that the
infractions existing there are with full knowledge of MCDA, and approved.
Unless there are different building codes that apply to the construction
trade here in Minnesota, this is the one instance where they have been
trampled, ignored, and passed over by the authority responsible to enforce
them.
As troubling as this may sound, it is a fact. Consider this if you will:
can we afford for even one instance to occur? The immediate thought should
be, what factors caused this particular instance, and how many others have
been, or will be, subject to the same? How many dollars have been wasted in
this manner, and who are the persons or what properties have received
similar treatment?
Though this is more properly assigned another venue, it is an issue that
should be discussed in this forum, if for no other reason than to alert
Minnesotans to the possibility of encountering the same. As it does involve
tax dollars and fair and equitable circumstances for Minnesotans, it is a
matter to be reckoned with.
Robert Anderson
IP Candidate 61B
www.andersonforhouse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: kaforbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:10 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Letting off steam
----- Original Message -----
From: Ford, Keith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:28 PM
Subject: RE: Letting off steam
> The MCDA's construction standards not only comply with existing standards
> (i.e. the Building Code) but exceeds them. Always aware that we are
spending
> taxpayers' money, we nevertheless strive to ensure that our partners build
> superior homes. In addition, for every home we build the design is
approved
> by the neighborhood group with which we contract and pay to advised us on
> MCDA neighborhood activities. (I know Karen Forbes, in her complaint about
> Council Member Herron, believes that process didn't work well in her case.
> We are looking into that and you'll get a response soon. Please bear with
> me.)
I would like to clarify what I understand about the recommendation that MCDA
made to the city council yesterday. What Daryl Hall recommended was a
private party to buy the lot. They care only about the money. He made no
mention as to the house that would go on that lot. So quality of the house
was not considered. The neighbors who saw the house were not at all
impressed with the quality of the house but Mr. Hall did not seem to care.
>
> >
> Mr. Anderson further wrote:
> >Without being aware of MCDA's involvement in my project, I
> > find that their influence, or the lack of it, has created a problem for
me
> as
> > well as the community.
>
> I don't know how to respond to this. Mr. Anderson seems to say -- I don't
> know what the MCDA did, or even whether it did anything, but I don't like
it
> and it messed things up for me.
>
> > >
> Modular structures are being built in Minneapolis and not just by the
MCDA's
> partners. In fact, there was a lengthy discussion with the Phillips
> neighborhood about 2 story modular housing and, in fact, the MCDA (i.e.
> taxpayers) paid for neighborhood representatives to visit some sites and a
> factory in Baltimore (at least, I think it was Baltimore). The
neighborhood
> reps and the MCDA staff concluded that the construction materials were not
> high enough quality. That company was sent the MCDA standards and it came
> back with a price that exceed traditional construction price. That idea
was
> dropped. Since then, we have tried out another company and so far we have
> had positive results.
The developer that wants to build the house is from Wisconsin.
>
> Finally, Mr. Anderson says:
> >Clearly it is time to re-think the activities of MCDA and its mission, as
> well as the politics
> > supportive of its acts.
>
> That's probably always a good idea. In this context, the MCDA has several
> missions. One is to provide affordable housing, with particular emphasis
on
> "non-impacted" areas -- i.e. areas that now have a low incidence of
> affordable housing. We are also charged with trying to improve
neighborhoods
> by removing blight and improving the housing stock.
Mr. Ford, by supporting a sale of a structure that is of questionable
quality and does not fit in with other houses you are contributing to blight
on our block and definately not improving our housing stock. In fact if the
house is an eyesore our property values could go down.
We try to do this by
> teaming with superior partners, always cognizant that we are spending the
> public's money.
In this case you are spending the public's money but not with a superior
partner, and certainly not considering the neighborhoods wishes or concerns.
>
> Karen Forbes
Central Neighborhood
>
>
>
> >
>
