Tim Bonham wrote:
Statements like the following always seem to set my personal BS detector
ringing:
>Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing
>crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade.
Whenever anyone starts out saying "we all know that...", I look to see what
they are trying to sell me.
So before I'm willing to agree that I am "well aware that...", I'd like to
see some figures from David supporting this assertion. For example:
- are demolition permits for past years significantly higher than
previous years?
- are the majority of these demolition permits obtained by the
city, or by individual owners?
- are houses being demolished because of a city "demolition
quest", or simply because of an aging housing stock? I.E., is the average
age of houses being demolished going down?
snip
David Piehl writes:
Some months ago, there was lengthy discussion on the reduction in total number
of dwelling units available in the city of Minneapolis, based on census data -
it was something like 17,000 units less. The discussions that ensued - as well
as work done by several affordable housing groups - identified demolition as the
primary driver behind the reduction in the number of units available; hence the
(overly broad) statement to open the discussion. I believe many of the units
demolished are unneccessarily victims of the wrecking ball, sometimes because
they housed problem occupants, sometimes because they are just not part of a
larger plan that certain civil servants may feel is best for the area. It is my
opinion that demolition is the simple, band-aid solution of choice for certain
city staff. Our experience in Central with the houses that were sold by the
MPHA as part of the Hollman agreement a few years ago is a classic example.
Nine MPHA homes in Central were conveyed to MCDA in the first round, staff at
MPHA said they chose to convey to the MCDA so the homes would be thoroughly
rennovated and sold to owner occupants rather than investors. MCDA proposed
demolishing all of them. MCDA had "rehab estimates" for each of the properties
that were astonishingly high to support their assertions. The residents of
Central didn't buy into this thinking, and pushed for further assesments. One
of the homes was located on the corner of 33rd and Chicago Ave - MCDA claimed it
needed in excess of $100,000 of work to be up to code, including lead abatement,
and should be demolished. When the house was toured by some state officials,
neighborhood residents, and folks from some of the local non-profit developers,
everyone was astonished by the great condition of the home. Lead tests showed
that lead abatement had already been done, and a large amount of rehab had
already been done by MPHA. It was clear to many people present that the MCDA
had generated rehab numbers without ever viewing the property. Maybe they used
a standard calculation per square foot, I don't know, but in the end this home
was nicely rennovated and sold to an owner occupant for about $75,000 or $80,000
- and there was no subsidy required!! The sale actually generated a profit that
was put into less profitable rennovations!
If one couples this experience with statements made by senior staff at the MCDA
about the value of new construction, and that new construction is the only way
to attract suburban buyers, then it lends credibility to the "demolition quest"
theory. Further, the fact that inspections demolished houses if the cost of
code compliance exceeds the cost of demolition (about $12,000) is another major
issue. In the midst of a housing crisis, it seems that the cost of the
demolition could be better spent on the rennovation.
I could site dozens of homes that MCDA controlled that were demolished without
ever making them available to the public. The dollar figures applied to
rennovations are often absolutely bizarre. My opinion: If MCDA can't rennovate
a property they receive, they need to do a "Request for Proposals" before a
property is demolished.
A moratorium on demolition of housing is probably over-broad, but it's a
starting point for discussion. Realistically, properties that have had a fire,
for example, might be clear cases for an emergency demolition. Properties that
have never been accessable to the public should in no case be demolished until
they are made available.
To put a little perspective on it all, when the out-going council and mayor
established the current demolition evaluation process, the city was very
different than it is today. At that time, there was excess housing stock, and
all the talk was about how falling housing values could be supported, and the
need for less density. In that environment, less scrutiny of re-use options
prior to demolition was less of an issue. Today, we have a housing shortage,
and values have skyrocketed. It's time to start getting creative about finding
ways to use what we have.
David Piehl
Central/8th Ward
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
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
