The following text is based on a report to the Green Party local in Minneapolis. It will be posted on the GP list immediately. An edited version will be distributed at the special meeting of the Minneapolis Branch on Wednesday, October 8, 2003 at Zion Baptist Church (621 Elwood Ave. Just North of Olson Highway and one block East of Logan Ave.) The branch meeting is scheduled to start at 8:00 PM. There will be some preliminary discussion beginning at 7:00 PM at the same location if the meeting space is accessible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The latest controversy surrounding the Hollman Settlement (Consent Decree) is the city's delay in getting replacement housing built on time, including replacement units that are part of "Phase 3" of the Heritage Park development plan (38 public housing, 18 or 19 Tax Subsidy units, 38 or 39 market rate).
The Plaintiffs: Public housing tenants represented by Legal Aid and the NAACP. The defendants, the City of Minneapolis, the Met Council, and HUD (federal dept of Housing and Urban Development). The parties to the Hollman lawsuit originally agreed to demolish 770 dwelling units at 4 housing projects that straddle Olson Highway on the Near North Side of Minneapolis, and to place them with dwelling units scattered about the suburbs and non-"impacted" areas of the City within 7 years. That agreement was made in 1995. However, of the 298 units the City agreed to acquire / build, the City only had 96 of the units completed and ready to occupy by October 2002, according to a report by Dean Carlson, MPHA (Minneapolis Public Housing Authority) project manager. At the request of the plaintiffs, the Court's supervision of the City and HUD was extended to November 1, 2004, but not the Met Council, which had yet to complete 150 of the 482 units it had agreed to build. Half of the Met Councils uncompleted units were "under construction" in October 2002. And there are currently a total of 228 units not completed, according to an Oct. 1, 2003 Star-Tribune report. Court supervision of the City and HUD will could end in 2004 with the City still owing the Hollman plaintiffs over 100 dwelling units. What's the hold-up? The City cites funding problems. HUD put up $117 million for replacement housing in 1995. That's a little over $150,000 per unit (for 780 units). By 1999 only 45 units were done or "on-line," most in the suburbs. Was the City's share of the dough just stuffed into a mattress, sitting in a bank account not drawing any interest, or what? The City has gotten way behind schedule due, in part, to putting mixed income projects that included Hollman replacement units at the back of a queue for tax increment financing (for some of the units.) The City could have fulfilled its obligation to acquire / build all of the replacement units by the 2002 deadline, and certainly by 2004, if the City had chosen to put Hollman replacement units at or near the head of the queue for tax increment financing. That was an option. Some of the replacement housing could have simply been ordinary, pre-existing housing stock in some of the City's better neighborhoods. In fact, the City had no intention of meeting the 2002 deadline or the 2004 deadline. This summer the City asked the plaintiffs to extend the deadline to May 2005, but the City evidently has no intention of meeting that deadline either. In August 2003 the City complained of a $7.5 million funding gap due to HUD not allowing the City to cash in some unused mobility certificates (section 8 vouchers), and wants the plaintiffs to support the City in this dispute with HUD. Should the City be left unsupervised before fulfills its obligations under the Hollman Consent Decree? It's up to Legal Aid and the NAACP to ask the judge to extend Court's supervision of the City in this matter. I recommend that the NAACP does so. Should monetary penalties against the city be imposed for delays beyond November 2004? Legal Aid has threatened to ask the judge for sanctions against the city for further delays, such as requiring the City to pay $300,000 into an affordable housing trust fund in return for extending the deadline to May 2005 plus an unspecified quantity of money for each day the City goes beyond the May 2005 deadline. I recommend that the NAACP come forward with something along those lines. Should the Court appoint a special master who would be in charge of the city's Hollman implementation plan? The only candidate mentioned for this job is Jackie Cherryhomes. I think this is a bad idea. Jackie Cherryhomes was not moving things along when she chaired the City's Hollman Implementation committee. The delays are largely due to decisions about the use of tax increment financing and an emphasis on "mixed-income" housing projects where tax increment financing is part of the financing package. Should the NAACP and Legal Aid support the City in the dispute about how much HUD owes the City for unused mobility certificates? I think the NAACP and Legal Aid should stay out of it. The City has not been forthcoming in explaining what this dispute is about, how it is holding up implementation of the city's housing replacement plan, etc. And I think it is unwise to support the position of the City without knowing exactly what is in the fine print of the motions that the City is going to file with the Court. There is a danger that if the NAACP and Legal Aid fault HUD and do not allege that the City is at fault, the plaintiffs could end up holding the bag. -Doug Mann, King Field REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
