[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > criticism of the Portland Place > project on two > major points: 1. the bulldozer- (now called Hollman-) effect of eliminating > the housing for a very vulnerable section of our population without planned >replacement; The very vulnerable section of the population was the elderly. At the time, there was subsidized housing for the elderly. The others in that section were largely dope dealers, gang bangers, prostitutes and their children. The others were those trying their damnedest to get out of the way of the dealers, etc. and in fear of their lives. What was also true, and part of the bigger picture, was that, demographically, Phillips was overwhelmingly the subsidized poor and the lower echelons of the working poor. The theory on which Portland Place and SJI were warranted was that a neighborhood cannot survive and prosper without a mix of incomes. That meant that there had to be an influx of higher incomes to balance the lower incomes which prevailed. That's the bigger picture which I have said before that Lilligren does not get. What is also true, is that new, quality housing is invariably built for the middle class or higher, not for the poor. (Subsidized housing for the poor is the projects or the highrises nd, having been raised in the projects, I can tell you they are aa very mixed blessing). It appears to be assumed that the working poor will move into the houses the middle class leave to buy the new housing. >and 2. the elimination of reclaimable, historically significant > housing. It is sad to lose reclaimable housing but that housing cannot be reclaimed unless someone comes along and wants to reclaim it. MCDA was certainly not going to do that and most of those with the desire to do it did not--and do not--have the money to do it. It costs a pretty penny to move a house and rehab it up to our present code (the code leaves a lot to be desired, but it's the one we have). The houses were owned by MCDA and their rules are that if you buy such a house, you have something like 60 to 90 days to begin work on it and a year from that date to finish the work. When you buy the house from MCDA to rehab (or move) it you agree to those rules. You know that Robert, you bought one in 99 and failed to keep your agreement with MCDA. Your house is not yet on line or if it is, it's very recent. It was important for the health of Phillips that there be an influx of higher income people quickly. Portland Place and SJI provide that.
> As we proceed to develop housing in the core city I think > we must protect the interests of those already here in our >communities, as > well as those we want to attract. Not all of the residents of the 2600 and > 2700 blocks of 5th and Portland Avenues we drug dealers or undesirables. Even > if they were, affordable housing solutions will need to address the needs of > all concerned - be they chemical dependency, un- and under-employment, etc. One of the strategies which does help for chemically dependent people is to have them remove themselves from the network of people/situtions which operate to keep them in the pattern of chemical dependency. The housing on Portland and Fifth was not trnsitional housing or halfway houses which help people, but slum housing which had not been kept in good repair. > > I'm guessing this rumor that Ms. Marks heard from one of her friends... Not a rumor and the person had a phone call from Lilligren, not a lit piece. I got the person's call on Friday or Thursday. WizardMarks, Central > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
