Time for an all encompassing critique from a housing provider.
> 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, CM Many of the said potholes are the neighborhood group and the demands placed upon the private sector builder. If I was a non-profit I would just get the city to overlook the rules. Such as the Lydia House project. Damn the rules, zoning, or ordinance just go get 7 votes. > > 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. CM Policy should be stricken, dictate or stumbling block could be inserted. > > 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 CM Who is we? The neighborhood board? Is the Neighborhood acting as Real Estate Agent? Does an Agency Relationship exist? Kingfield board members beware. If your group is actively involved, you can be actively sued. 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. CM-True statements or what ever. It sure is nice getting maligned in the e-press. Makes me want to do business in this city. On the other hand. Why doesn't our city do this kind of deep personnel searching with it's employees and larger contractors? > > 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. CM-The above 5 paragraphs numb my mind. Yet I read purchase agreements, draft addendum, etc for a living. Why put up with this stuff from neighbors? I'd buy and purchase somewhere else. > > 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. CM You don't own it. Some one gave you authority you shouldn't have. You shouldn't be in this artificial position of power. Many list members will disagree with me on this ( they don't own large property) that is their right. But with real estate becoming competitive again, these kinds of burdens will cost the city dearly. There is a limited amount of venture capital and venture capitalists. They will take the path of less resistance(translation=not deal with you). > > 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. CM Nothing like forcing building covenants on someone. > > 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. CM Both Mr. Brauer and Ned are correct. Government, non-profit and taxpayer subsidized funding is roaring for senior housing. It has great votes, great appeal, with out the baggage of other housing. > > 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: CM: This is chilling. If you read this far. Be afraid. Mr. Brauer wants to decide who buys your property. Then he wants to decide who will run it. Damn the state laws. > > 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(Force)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 Craig's suggestion. Unless you have health and a real safety issue. Check the ordinance or grant him what he is looking for. This is your little but oh so important part of the fight for affordable housing. Pass it and let the man go quickly upon his way to solve the problem. Or you can make Good Sam lower the price again to make it happen. Wow with friends like that, who needs enemies. BTW Is there anyone from Good Sam who could email me off list? Let me know how you feel about the neighborhood group. Craig Miller Former Fultonite. _______________________________________ 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
