Mr. Ford,
I agree with your assessment of public expenditure's need to recapture the
investment as early as is possible. I dont, however, see the rationale of
Public works projects or parking ramps being associated with the crisis of
affordable housing. To your credit, you indicate that the mention of these
other expenditures are considered for benefits not associated with
affordable housing, but benefits to taxpayers just the same.
The difference, as I see it, is that those other expenditures mentioned
would not be associated with housing concerns, except in a very abstract
manner: housing units, on the other hand, evoke the question of affordable
units unquestionably. If the expenditure is for housing anywhere and uses
public dollars, is it prudent to exclude consideration of affordable units?
Should we be concerned that, if 20% are affordable units, the area may be
less attractive to higher income levels that may speed the recovery of the
expenditure?
This rationale is some what troubling because of its implicit reasoning.
Either we (Minneapolitans) are promoting mixed income units as a healthy
idea for the region generally, or we have, in accordance to the councils
reasoning, reserved that situation to certain locales where the practice is
either less offensive, or certainly not given the consideration of this
particular parcel. And, just what images should this provoke in the minds of
others?
Robert Anderson
IP Candidate for the House
Field-Regina-Northrop
www.andersonforhouse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ford, Keith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:08 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: New affordable housing new math
Tom is correct when he says "there is no reason why the city could not have
asked for some affordable units in light of our tax $ going into these
projects". However that same rationale could apply, perhaps appropriately,
to any project wherein the city invests money.
It could be a project by the MCDA, Public Works or whatever. I know -- the
instance is here is that a private developer got public assistance. But
isn't that true also when the City builds peripheral parking ramps around
downtown, thus relieving office and retail buildings of that investment. How
about when a neighborhood decides to invest some of its NRP dollars on
pedestrian lighting, thus relieving property owners of some or all of what
would typically be an assessment? How about the Park Board's investment in
the Mill Ruins Park, that will benefit some folks more than others.
In each instance, policy makers have decided that there is a clear public
benefit to the public investment, a benefit having nothing to do with
affordable housing. The public investment in the lofts around the historic
mills was made to preserve the mills and find an appropriate re-use. The
City absorbed some of the extraordinary cost of the historic preservation.
The council decided that was a priority worthy of public investment. Because
the adaptive re-use in this case is expensive housing (thus meeting another
city goal of attracting a wide range of income levels), the public
investment will be recaptured a lot more quickly.
Don't get me wrong. None of this means the City Council couldn't or
shouldn't put an affordable housing requirement onto any investment it
makes. But I think it is helpful to try to remember why the City is making
certain its investment in the first place.
Keith Ford
Deputy Executive Director
Minneapolis Community Development Agency
(612) 673-5013 Fax (612) 673-5293
http://www.mcda.org/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:06 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: New affordable housing new math
>
> I appreciate Keith responding to the inquiries of the poster
> questioning why
> there are not affordable housing units included in many of the new
> developments along the river even though they are subsidized
> with tax pay $
> going to very expensive housing. Keith points out that the
> City's recently
> adopted affordable housing policy only requires that 20% of
> city assisted
> rental units are affordable.
>
> This answer points to a couple of things: one, even though
> the policy does
> not require that homeownership units assisted by the city
> include affordable
> units there is no reason why the city could not have asked for some
> affordable units in light of our tax $ going into these
> projects; and two it
> seems only appropriate and prudent given our affordable
> housing crisis that
> we amend the current policy to include city assisted, tax
> payer subsidized
> home ownership units.
>
> Tom Streitz
> Kingfield
>
