----- Original Message ----- From: Hagen, Dawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:08 AM Subject: Re: 3424 Columbus Ave. S. > > Hello Ms Hagen, I am responding to your post of a couple of a weeks ago. I hope you will accept my apologies as to the delay in my responding to your post. I hope that will mot impact any of the value of what I need to say to you and Mr. Cramer who heads the MCDA regarding the property on our block at 3424 Columbus. It appears from your post that we see the situation from very different perspectives and I hope to clear up the inaccuracies as I and other block representatives see this transaction. > > The posts reflected some inaccuracies, and hopefully will clear up some > misperceptions. First, let me say that the MCDA values our partnerships with > nonprofits and neighborhoods. Ms Hagen I need to say that as a 16 year resident of this block and an active member of the disposition of the acquisition of the lot at 3424 Columbus Av., I do not feel valued. In MCDA's recently approved Strategic Plan -- > Building a City that Works -- we have identified a specific goal and > objectives to strengthen our partnerships with nonprofits and neighborhood > groups and residents. (Here is the link to MCDA's Strategic Plan Building A > City That Works -- http://www.mcda.org/Content/Org/strategic_plan.htm ) I want to know that I appreciate your providing this link and want you to know that I did read it and will be referring to two of the goals that are referenced in this plan: specifically Goal #3 and Goal #5. Goal #3 refers to support of strong and diverse neighborhoods and Goal #5 refers to partnerships to achieve common objectives. > While we sometimes disagree, it is important to keep the lines of > communication open so that we can understand and work through our > differences, as our common goal is strengthening our neighborhoods. I could not agree with you more. However from our block's perspective our concerns were not considered by anyone from your agency. > > To provide a bit of background, the MCDA Board of Commissioners/City Council > has recently adopted a Lot Reduction Policy, which provides a $27,500 > maximum subsidy for new-home construction or a house move. > > As mentioned above, MCDA owns the property at 3424 Columbus Ave. S. There > is the misperception from the neighborhood association and block club that > the MCDA had accepted an offer from PRG for this property. This is > incorrect. Only the MCDA Board of Commissioners I wasn't sure who this was but have later found out that this board is the city council. > Am I to understand that you were aware that PRG was working with us about plans for the lot with out your blessing? If that were the case why would you let them continue or at least let us as a block know about this miscommunication? This statement appears to contradict what you say below where it sounds as if you were aware that PRG wished to develop this lot as part of a package. Your communication from this post is anything but clear to this layman. The business specifics that were discussed with PRG and MCDA could only be addressed with PRG and yourself. I can not represent PRG's perspective in this post. They would have to defend themselves. I will say that having worked with them off and on for several years they are aware of the logistics of aquiring land and would not knowingly lead our neighborhood on nor spend the over six hours with our block if they felt that there was such a great chance of not acquiring the lot. It appears that posibly you as an organization decided to change the rules perhaps? Another question I have is knowing that PRG was interested in acquistion of the lot at 3424 Columbus and how you state you value your relationship with PRG, why would you say to another party that this lot was available? Why wouldn't you tell them there are plentyof other lots that they can choose from? This is what you said to PRG. pay fair market value for the land, develop the property to > meet City of Minneapolis code, and requested no subsidy. With all the hundreds of beautiful houses you have demolished over the years, at a very high cost to the tax payers, why are you so concerned with saving such a small subsidy? In keeping with > our Citizen Participation agreement with this neighborhood, the MCDA brought > this proposal to the neighborhood for review. The neighborhood declined to > comment on the proposal. You claim to be a citizen participatory agency but I beg to differ. No one on our block feels that MCDA considered any concerns that we brought forward. The way we were informed of someone else being interested in 3424 Columbus was not clear nor was it timely. We received a flyer with no letterhead informing us that a family was interested in building. If we wanted to meet him and see his plans we could attend a meeting that was to happen in JUST 4 DAYS. In goal #5 you state your objectives to being a reliable and > trustworthy partner. Also in Goal #5 it states you are achieving clarity, candor and timeliness in your communications with partners and customers. It seems that you were not focussing on that goal when you chose to inform our block about this new person. Your staff member Darly Hall attended the CNIA housing meeting and we found him to be more argumentative and tended to disagree with us and our concerns and desires for the block. He talked more to the PRG representive than to us. We also had our petition at this meeting which did not seem to matter to him either. He mostly talked about the business dealings with PRG and ignored us neighbors. One request that was made at this meeting was if the decision was made not to go with the PRG proposal that we would be flyered again to have a specific meeting to review the house plans that were being proposed by them or whoever. Well. it has been weeksnow since the decision has been made and we have yet to be flyered by anybody. Frankly, I felt ignored by Mr. Hall and my gut feeling was that he wished I was not there. One final comment about communication at this meeting. The prospective buyer appeared to not speak English; the developer spoke for him and his family. In Goal #5 to speak of development and access the needs of those who face cultural or linguistic barriers. If you found this person and he was to meet the neighbors and answer questions, how was this suppose to happen without an interpreter? I would like to bring one final point regarding clarity and candor as you refer to in Goal #5. At this housing meeting the developer that was to build the "nice two story house" was not at all informed that PRG and our block was interested in the lot. As you have stated previously you were aware that we were interested. This man had no idea that there we were interested. Of course no one informed the party he was hoping to build for beacuse no one spoke Spanish. Were you hoping to "get one by him also?" You also state that the neighborhood declined to comment on the proposal. This is a BALD FACE LIE! Despite having only 4 days to change our schedules to attend the CNIA housing meeting as stated in the flyer, we were able to have some neighborhood representation at this meeting. At this meeting not only did we express our desire to continue to work with PRG but we presented a petition with over 20 signatures stating the support for PRG. We stated we liked them as a partner and liked the quaility of their work. We even had the choice of the 20 on the design they had chosen. Also at the Operating Committee we presented the same petition and made the same statements. Mr. Cramer was sitting at the table when I spoke to this issue and when I handed the petition to Councilmember Niland. He did not say anything to me. How can you or Mr. Cramer say we did not respond? I would also like to reflect on Goal #3 about supporting strong and diverse neighborhoods. Two objectives included in that goal are to eliminate barriers and blighting influences. Also included is preservation and enhancement of unique neighborhood characteristics. The houses on our block are close to 100 years old. We are proud of our housing stock. Why we chose PRG is that their product is known to fit into the housing on our block. From a looking at the d design of the other house it did not appear satisfactory. By putting this house on our block we believe this will contribute to blight and not enhance and preserve the uniqueness of our block. This was another of your goals that we tried to communicate to you that was ignored. > As a result the MCDA presented both proposals to the City Council Operating > Committee -- the proposal from a private developer to build a home for his > family with no subsidy, and the proposal from PRG that requested a $27,500 > subsidy and had no buyer identified. The Operating Committee approved the > sale of the property to the private developer at fair market value with no > subsidy. In conclusion, I really am not sure what the role of the MCDA truly is. You have goals on paper that are clear however in reality these goals were not followed in the case of the lot acquisition at 3424 Columbus. Instead of working with an agency that claims to be citizen particapatory we felt totally powerless and unheard. I am sorry that my tax dollars have aided in such abuse. Thank you for considering my perspective. I trust you will pass on thoughts to Mr. Cramer. Karen Forbes Central Neighborhood
