A little over 2 years ago, MPHA sold on the private market 7 boarded-up, single family homes that were in very tough shape. They ranged in price from $2,500 to $45,000 with most of them sold in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. As part of the sale, each buyer had to agree to fix them up and use them for family home ownership purposes (not rental). Based on my windshield survey of the units several months after the sale, all them were fixed up and are currently occupied. I know for a fact that some of buyers really struggled with the magnitude of the rehab work involved, however they perservered and today 7 formally boarded up homes are nice, completely updated homes contributing to the neighborhood instead of detracting from it.
Also more recently MPHA sold 2 homes that had been boarded up for 5 years (don't ask). MPHA required that a work program and financing needed to be in place as part of the terms of the sale. Both homes will receive close to $65,000 to $80,000 dollars worth of rehab work. These homes were in an extreme state of disrepair with the neighborhood recyclers taking anything they could, new roofs needed, all mechanics, kitchens, bathrooms, you name it. (It was fun telling Excel Energy and the water Department that we couldn't do a final meter reading when these homes were sold because there was no meter to read!!). The bottom line is that homes can be repaired and brought back up to code. It is extremely expensive and time consuming, and it isn't something a person can do on the weekends and evenings after work. It takes professionals and lots of dollars. Due to this experience, I can understand why it's difficult to justify the use of amount of taxpayer dollars needed to fix up all the boarded up homes in the City. If the public subsidizes the entire cost of the rehab or significant portion of it, not many houses will get rehabbed before the money runs out; if the subsidy is capped at let's say $10,000 to $20,000, other funds will be needed to get the house up to code. In my opinion, the rehabbing of the boarded up housing stock should be a private matter with the City making available the boarded up homes at a very low cost and let the private financing market provide funds for the rehab. On a related note, HUD has a commissioned a study looking at the barriers to rehabbing affordable housing. It is very academic and quite long (400 pages spread over 2 volumes). However some of it is pretty interesting. Volume II does provide case studies with pro formas. To download the pdf files or to order Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing, Volume I: Findings and Analysis and Volume II: Case Studies, visit the HUD USER Web site at: http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/brah.html Dean E. Carlson (NOT the Project Manager for Hollman, but MPHA Development Coordinator) Ward 10, East Harriet ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor > 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 > > _______________________________________ 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
