First, a quick note before digging into this a bit: like the house move issue and Ace Hardware, kudos for Kingfield for bringing this to a broader audience. The debate around this is essential.
David asked four questions and I thought I'd weigh in as best I can on each: >1. Do we reject Ned's 20-percent variance request and risk getting a >more poorly configured building for the long-term? > Based on what was spelled out in David's post, I'd recommend rejecting it because there are too many unanswered questions, such as affordability, financing, management, etc. It's certainly within your realm as an advisory group of folks to ask that developments that request variances conform to KFNA's housing policies (provided, in my mind, that KFNA is truly representative of the neighborhood). Based on the information presented, it seems reasonable to recommend against the variance unless more information is forthcoming. >2. How can you tie a developer to a 20-percent affordable promise with >no money in the deal? > You can't. But, perhaps you can develop a better relationship with the developer and figure out a joint plan to come up with contractual reasons for him to assure affordability. For instance, Hennepin County has an Environmental Response Fund Emergency Grant program that provides funding for the assessment and clean up of contaminated sites, such as an "asbestos-ridden" building described in the post. CCHT has received some of these funds for environmental hazards in apartment buildings and it is obviously available to multi-family apartment projects. Why not strike a deal with the developer to jointly apply for the funds, in return for contractual promises to maintain affordability (in other words, the money otherwise required to be spent on environmental assessment and remediation would be a subsidy for the affordable apartments). This would, of course, require staff time to do, but why not invest in hiring someone temporarily and part-time to pursue this? Seems a good use of neighborhood funds if the developer agrees in principle and in writing. >3. Is there a greater need for affordable family housing or affordable >senior housing, or is either meeting an important city-wide need? > Good question. According to the City's Consolidated Plan (which is up for public hearing today at 1:30 p.m.), there is a "high" priority need for affordable large family units at the 0-30% MMI and at the 31-50% MMI ranges, and a "medium" priority need for large family units at the 51-80% range. For elderly housing, the City's ConPlan sets a "medium" priority need for such housing at both the 0-30 % and 31-50% range. The City rates elderly housing at the 51-80% MMI level as a "low" priority housing need. The priorities are for the period of 2000 to 2004. I'm again surprised and concerned to see comments about "welfare moms" and "unease about the potential for big, poor families." My suggestion is to allow debate only on this issue if there are cold hard facts that show "welfare moms" or "big, poor families" cause problems in a neighborhood other than apparent unease among neighbors. Otherwise, I believe it is the board's obligation not to allow discriminatory comments about "poor families" and "welfare moms." Nothing exists to show that such folks are any different (other than income) from other families. >4. What's Matcom's management record city-wide? Abdul's record? > No clue on this one, other than my very peripheral knowledge of the situation at 18th and Chicago, where CCP/SAFE was involved in revoking the license of the landlord, and Abdul ultimately brought suit against the City. I'd try calling folks in inspections (Ricardo Cervantes is a good choice) to see if they have information. At a minimum, you could request a list of properties that Matcom or Abdul is listed as the contact, then obtain inspections data for those properties. Inspections data is public data. 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
