A couple of nights ago, we met with a developer named Ned Abdul. Ned has struck a deal with the owners of the Good Samaritan nursing home, 4425 Nicollet, a former 105-bed hospital that has been on the market since 2000.
Good Sam represents Kingfield's best shot at adding affordable housing. However, the road to getting there has been filled with potholes, and I could use the list's collective expertise to help us wade through to whatever opportunities may remain. The nursing home sat on the market for over a year, mostly because the asbestos-ridden, systems-corroded building was grossly overpriced at nearly $2 million. While this was going on, the Kingfield board established a policy seeking affordable housing or a community school. The school district said it was too small for a public school, so we aggressively recruited developers and also facilitated other interests (such as a charter school). One charter school had a purchase agreement, but the group evaporated. Other developers were interested, but said the building was overpriced. Good Sam finally woke up to economic reality late last year and dropped the price to $890,000. There were two developers whom the board had talked to who were very interested and very committed to affordable housing. But fairly quickly, Good Sam picked Ned Abdul. We think his money is more ready; he's prepared to do market-rate, so Good Sam can get their money more quickly. I only met him last week, but Ned Abdul is the source of some controversy. He lost his landlord license over the poor management of a place at 18th & Chicago some years back, was mixed up in some mortgage-flipping stories Steve Brandt chronicled, had a role in an overpriced, flipping-like scheme on the north side that the school district got mixed up in, and apparently was involved in a Whittier project where he had to be removed from the rehab. That said, the guy has apparently done a lot of other projects successfully. He's currently renovating the old Latham's Table/Blue Nile in Lyn-Lake, as well as lots of other small and large projects. He said the mortgage-flipping stuff was a business disagreement and has since done business with the plaintiffs again; as for Chicago Ave., he said he no longer manages properties, he just develops them, hiring a company called Matcom manage them. (Anyone know anything about their record?) Ned has been pretty clear he doesn't plan to own the building long-term. He wants to sell it quickly to an institutional investor. He has long said he has a purchase agreement, though we can't confirm that, and now says he will close on the building in early April. The real estate agents won't return our calls for confirmation, after being very available when the building was on the market. Ned is requesting a 20-percent zoning variance from the city; his hearing is April 1. The property is currently zoned R-4, meaning it's limited to 24 units. Ned wants to build 29, and he needs the neighborhood's recommendation. As you can imagine, the neighborhood board is highly skittish about his track record, and there's some hope that if we recommend against the variance, perhaps the deal isn't doable and a better developer emerges. Then again, Ned says he will own the building whether there are 24 or 29 units. He said it's in the neighborhood's best interest to recommend for the variance, because a 29-unit rehab will have a "better" mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units, where a 24-unit building will have more 3- and 4-bedroom units. The barely-spoken threat is that fewer, larger units, a Good Sam project will more single moms with tons of welfare kids. Go with more units, Ned seems to be saying, and you get a "better" mix. However, some board members think Ned needs 29 units to do the deal at all. Will any of it be affordable? Ay, there's another rub. In one breath, there's the "welfare mom" threat, but at the same time, Ned says the project will be market rate for now, since he has to close on the building before he can even try to get subsidy to add affordable units. He did say he would be applying to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and others for subsidy. However, there is no commitment to affordability and little trust on our part right now. Anyway, at the meeting, Ned promised to make 20 percent of the units affordable at 50 percent of the metro-median income (MMI) if we recommended for the 29 units. He acknowledged that it would be hard to keep that 20 percent promise if he sold the building, but pledged to explore tying up the title or some other more permanent way to guarantee 20 percent long-term. Our neighborhood board has housing guidelines requiring 30 percent of any new more-than-duplex development be rentable at 30% of MMI, 30 percent at 50% MMI, and the rest market rate. Otherwise, we don't recommend upzoning, variances, or offer our meager potential NRP financing. That isn't to say the neighborhood is always with us. At the meeting, there was surprisingly little opposition to affordable housing (we flyered about a quarter of our neighborhood closest to Good Sam). However, there was clearly a lot of unease about the potential for big, poor families. So someone suggested, why not make it senior affordable housing? My personal take is that these folks want affordable housing only if the people in it are older and can't cause much trouble, even if the real need is among younger singles and families. Personally, I think the need is greater for the latter - but I'd like info from those who know. Ned is open but skeptical about the market for senior-affordable. If you've read this far, thanks! We basically want to figure out how to get the most affordable units from a developer we can trust (even if it's to hire the right management company). In a nutshell, here are the questions we're wrestling with: 1. Do we reject Ned's 20-percent variance request and risk getting a more poorly configured building for the long-term? 2. How can you tie a developer to a 20-percent affordable promise with no money in the deal? 3. Is there a greater need for affordable family housing or affordable senior housing, or is either meeting an important city-wide need? 4. What's Matcom's management record city-wide? Abdul's record? I'm sure there are other questions/details I'm forgetting, but I'll add those to the discussion if it emerges. Final thought: I genuinely do value the differing perspectives and expertise on this list. We on the Kingfield board do want to be part of solving the citywide affordable-housing problem, but we want to do it in a fair, reasonable, sustainable way. This isn't an ideological thing - we're just trying to do the right thing, and we appreciate your help, whatever your point of view. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 President, King Field Neighborhood Association _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________ 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
