Barb writes: > Two > nursing care facilities have vacated in neighborhoods > in the city that have none of the type of housing I > described. One is being converted to "market rate" > apartments. In all fairness to people in that > neighborhood, they are requesting that at least 6 of > those units be affordable.
This is not accurate, Barb, if you're talking about the Good Sam nursing home at 44th & Nicollet in Kingfield. This site is zoned for 24 units, though the developer is seeking a conditional use increase to 29. Our board has a policy that asks for 30% of replacement of new housing in any given project in the Kingfield Neighborhood be developed as affordable at 30-50% of the Metro Median Income (MMI); another 30% affordable at 60% of MMI, and the rest (40%) at market rate. We are actively contesting the market-rate project proposed by a private developer, Ned Adbul. In the face of our pressure on his zoning variance request - which got me in hot water with Craig Miller some weeks back - Ned (not us) offered 20 percent (6 units) at 50% MMI. It's better than nothing (though Ned has made no promises about how this would be guaranteed). But for the record, we *are* seeking more affordable units: 17 of the 29 (or all 39 if senior affordable goes in there, since you can build more of those units within zoning). We have limited power here, as the list may remember from last month's discussion. We're hamstrung because the private owner, Good Sam, wanted to sell to the quickest money, which was Ned's. That's their right, but in the view of affordable housing advocates, their fault. However, we are working with various private and public developers if Abdul's deal falls through. Ask Dean Carlson at MPHA how welcoming we've been. We are going above and beyond most neighborhoods to get affordable units here, even financing a challenge to the zoning variance to test its strength to encourage affordable housing. I wish the city gave us better tools, but there are property rights to be balanced (as landlords on the list have made properly clear). Barb adds: > However, > Prodigal House which is a project that provides > supportive housing for Mentally Ill and Chemically > dependent individuals wanted to locate there. The > project was faced with such resistance by neighbors, > they didn't even both to apply for the zoning > classification they needed. They just quietly went > away and looked for another site. I make no apologies for opposing Prodigal House. They: a) didn't have the zoning (there's a 32-bed limit here, they wanted 70) b) have never run a project half as large as the 70-bed facility they were proposing c) have never run a project in a neighborhood (their current facility is sequestered on the grounds of the Minnesota Veteran's hospital) d) had no financing plan e) told us there wouldn't be sex offenders, which turned out to be wrong Other neighborhoods and council members can make their own call on this, but I stand by ours. David Brauer Kingfield _______________________________________ 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
