Please note that my earlier post yesterday was in response to Mr. Anderson.
As I indicated, we are looking into the concerns Ms. Forbes expressed and
will have a response soon.
Thanks.
Keith Ford
Deputy Executive Director
Minneapolis Community Development Agency
(612) 673-5013 Fax (612) 673-5293
http://www.mcda.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kaforbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
