Jim Graham asks: > Perhaps we could get David Brauer to explain how exactly he and his > neighborhood were successful at their endeavor to stop Prodigal House.
The sellers, the Good Samaritan Society, let their real estate agent know that they were not interested in selling the property if there were going to be problems getting a variance. Prodigal House would have needed a zoning variance to go above 32 beds; they wanted 70. Our neighborhood group facilitated two neighborhood meetings with Prodigal House; I think if you ask them, they'd tell you the neighborhood association acted as honest brokers. As a board, we never took a position, and as it turned out, Prodigal House never asked. In retrospect, there were 2 reasons why. One supports Jim's concentration point and one is a market thing. 1. The market. At the time, the Good Samaritan Society had a ridiculous price on the building - $1.5 million for a building that sold (a year later) for $800,000 as market-rate housing. Prodigal House made several representations that they would have no problem getting financing, mostly from Hennepin County, but given the building's significant rehab costs (asbestos, complete HVAC rehab), I think the price might have done them in. Also, they had never operated a program in a neighborhood (they'd only existed as a Veteran's Administration tenant) and never owned a building. We thought they were a bit green at the development game, but we figured the sellers and the financiers could judge that. I don't know what the building cost in Phillips, but I'm betting it's far less. Fewer beds for PH, too? 2. Supporting Jim's thesis: city zoning rules put our neighborhood in the game. Although my knowledge is not definitive, it's my understand that the city's 32-bed limit only applies in outlying neighborhoods; I'm not sure where the border is, but areas closer to the city don't have the 32-bed limit. If I'm right that this bifurcated zoning exists, Jim is right - the city needs a full debate. (There were also suggestions at the time that federal law trumped city zoning, but it never got that far - see point 1 and also the rest of this response). In any event, the zoning rules meant Prodigal needed a variance, and since most councilmembers typically toss the toughies to the neighborhood first, that's why they came to us. Would convincing Kingfield have been a tough row for Prodigal to hoe? Sure; plus the seller insisted that the variance be assured, so the sale wouldn't be delayed by process (although, ironically, the property languished on the market for many more months after PH vanished). I never heard from Prodigal House after the second meeting - during which there was opposition, but no votes, torches, or pitchforks. All in all, it meant this ex-neighborhood board president never had to make the tough decision on what the right thing to do was. (PH folks seemed earnest enough, but were clearly not prepared to do engage a neighborhood then; for example, at the first meeting, they said they'd have no sex offenders in their program, and at the second meeting, admitted they would.) After that, I think PH went east of the highway to 46th & 3rd, but I don't know what happened there because it's another neighborhood. A year later, by the way, we spent neighborhood $$ to appeal a City Council Z&P ruling because the eventual buyer wouldn't commit to ENOUGH affordable housing on the Good Sam site. Here, city law couldn't help us, and the sale went through. Again, Prodigal House pulled out for at least a couple of reasons, but it never got to the point that this neighborhood had to engage in an "endeavor." I'm not saying we wouldn't have, but in this case, we didn't. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ 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
