As some folks know, I've been trying to learn more about the ten proposals now before the NRP for the $4 million Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. My request to NRP to provide copies of the proposals was met with initial delay but otherwise cooperation in stating that they would give me copies of the proposals. More recently, the NRP has cited the data government practices act in refusing to release any of the proposals. Despite the proposals having been required to be discussed publicly and endorsed by a neighborhood group, the proposals are now apparently private data (except, of course, to those in the know at the neighborhood level, in the NRP, and those involved in the development plans).
My specific interest (and actually the interest of at least six other tenant advocate groups) is the actual affordability of the proposals, particularly with the requirement that at least 20% of the units be affordable to those at 50% or less of median income (not to say we agree with the policy, but just seeing if people even conform to the policy). I'm also interested in who, if anyone, will be displaced by the proposals and whether those folks have been engaged in any discussions. On a personal note, I'd also like to know how Ventura Village, Inc. (and NRP) ever dealt with serious conflict of interest issues with board members maintaining a financial interest in the Carriage House proposal. I'm still gathering information, but obtaining only very general information about the ten proposals, with more specific information about one project: the Urban Village in Lowry Hill East. The project will be along the Midtown Greenway at 29th Street between Aldrich and Dupont. With the Urban Village proposal (according to the draft which was appoved by the neighborhood group), the key term is upscale and unaffordable. The plan calls for 190 units of "mixed-income, owner-occupied, and transit-oriented housing units." Looking through the details of the plan--which is being promoted and proposed directly by the MCDA as well as from private developers Lander Group, Country Home Builders and Sherman Associates, it is clear that those who will benefit from living along the Greenway will be upscale professionals. This is the first proposed housing development along the Greenway. Two million dollars has been budgeted for relocation expenses, but it is not known if this is relocation of residents or businesses. There is, as required by NRP, mention of "affordable" housing. Of the 190 units proposed, a total of 29 units are said to be "affordable" to those below 80% of the Metro Median Income (MMI). Thus, about 15% of the total units are classified as "affordable." Eight of these 29 units are to be MPHA-owned, which by definition generally makes these affordable to those at 30% or below MMI.. Of the other 21 other "affordable" units, 9 are affordable to those at 60% of the MMI ($41,160 for a family of four), and 12 are affordable to those at 80% of the MMI ($54,880 for a family of four). Housing prices will range from $115,000 for small (900 sq. ft) 2 bedroom units to $284,000 for larger (1,850 sq. ft 2 bedroom + den) townhomes/lofts. A majority of the units are in the $170,000 to $284,000 range. The proposal admits it has failed to meet the requirement of city's affordable housing policy requirements (20% of the units must be set aside as affordable to those at 50% of the median income), but state that the NRP funds will be used for only 129 "affected units," not the total of 190 units. What exactly is an "affected unit" is not known, nor is it possible to find out from the draft of the proposal I have obtained. I'll keep searching for more information on each of the proposals, and updating folks if need be. If anyone has information that they could share, please e-mail me, as the government folks are no longer cooperative. Gregory Luce North Phillips (work) _______________________________________ 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
