Steve Brandt's article in today's Tribune is an example of the rather sloppy manner that the issue of "affordable housing" tends to be discussed among many sectors: reporters, politicians, advocates, etc.
1) He does not clearly define the terms he uses: He uses the term affordable housing but:
How is he defining affordable housing? Is he referring to those who make 80% of median income? 50% of median income? Those who make 30% or less of median income.
1) The term affordable gets bandied about as if everyone has the same definition for it... that is not the case. The representative of a Housing Co-Op that spoke at a Kingfield board meeting and referred to his past experience of builing affordable housing. He proceeded to talk about a multi-unit builidng in Kenwood defining it as affordable housing--- due the fact that the college student children of Kendwood residents could now move back into Kenwood because they could afford the rent. (He offered this information with great pride.)
2) Referring to the recent controversey over attempts to take NRP money for home loans, Brandt talks about the broker who proposed this "to help low-income folks obtain mortgages."
The broker, Ron Ravensborg, either did not tell Brandt his definition of low-income housing or Brandt neglected to ask him to specify what Ravensborg means when he uses the term low income.
3) Brant goes on to refer to Ravensborg saying "his idea was driven by his experiences in the mortgage industy, where borrowers with past credit issues sometimes were shut out of home loans..." again there is not mention by Brandt of who these borrowers are, what is their actual income?
4) Brandt again uses one of Ravensborgs examples "...a renter who called him more than a year ago in search of home financing..She and her children rented a house in south Minneapolis for $1,350 a month. She had a stable job with modest salary, but her ex-husband's credit problems kept her from qualifying for a loan."
Again, Mr. Brandt does not report what the woman's "modest salary" was and it also does not talk about whether this woman got child support that added to her income.
This sort of sloppy reporting counts on the reader to accept as truth anyone's claims they are serving low income people or that they are providing affordable housing. Just throw out the buzz words and you do not have to explain what you are really talking about.
I am not sure if it simply sloppy reporting or intentional avoidance of providing information.
Margaret Hastings-Minneapolis-Kingfiedl
