Craig Miller wrote:

> City staff has teamed up with 504 to fund the further destruction of
> affordable rental housing.
> This time the bogeyman is lead.

Greg Luce, of Project 504, asked me to post this for him.


Craig and others:

I am no longer on the Minneapolis Issues list, but wanted to respond to
a forwarded post to me by Craig Miller about "doing in" the small city
landlord.  And, while I have some people's attention, sign on to Project
504's statement of support about this program at
http://www.project504.org/pages/611171/index.htm

To be clear, Council Members Zerby and Zimmermann are co-authoring a
proposal where rental dwelling license fees will be increased by $3.00
per unit to fund lead hazard reduction activities in Minneapolis.
Without the funding (which the Mayor originally proposed as part of his
budget but a council member amended the plan to pull it out), the lead
hazard control program may face elimination in the near future.  This
will mean that there may be NO response in the city to a lead-poisoned
child.  Currently, the city is mandated to respond and issue lead
abatement orders requiring the homeowner or rental property owner to
abate the lead-based paint hazards, but--because of funding--it also
provides financial resources and other significant services above and
beyond any state and federally mandated obligations.

Craig suggests that this funding mechanism is a way to "do in" the small
city landlord and "fund the further destruction of affordable rental
housing."  In reality, funding the program does exactly the opposite: it
maintains a city program that has worked to preserve housing and avoid
condemnations related to lead-based paint hazards.  Without a viable and
strong program (which is now considered a leader in the country), there
will be no resources available to a small landlord or homeowner if a
child is lead poisoned and mandated abatement must occur.  With no
program, the city's only option is to tell a lead poisoned child and her
family that they must vacate their apartment unless the landlord
voluntarily abates the lead.  The unit is then condemned.  In the last
five years, with a strong lead hazard control program, there have been 0
(i.e., zippo, nada, zed) condemnations.  With the prospect of no
funding, there are now condemnations on the horizon and Project 504, for
its part, is strategizing to figure out how to prevent those
condemnations if there are no monies available to assist the landlord in
lead abatement work.

The lead hazard control program is also extremely successful in bringing
in matching and contributing funds, such that $1 committed by the city
often leads to $5-$10 in matching state and federal funds.  With no city
money committed to lead hazard control, the city loses these monies and
cannot even apply for federal grants.  Thus, we cease to have a program
with little chance of reestablishing it without either dedicated funds
or general fund appropriations (which in this fiscal environment is near
next to impossible).

What is done with the federal and state monies?  It funds programs to
install new windows and abate lead hazards, at a highly subsidized rate
to homeowners and landlords (in most cases, I believe the property owner
foots about 1/3 or less of the overall bill).  It funds a program that
writes down interest rates to 0% on loans to abate hazards. It provides
free lead risk assessments to property owners.  It funds abatement work
in home-based daycare.  These directly benefit the small property owner
(and daycare provider) who does not typically have the capital to
complete lead hazard work.

So, are we on track to "do in" the small city landlord?  Nope, just the
opposite, while at the same time committing to protect children from
lead poisoning.  I'd say that Council Member Zerby, Zimmermann,
Lilligren, Samuels, and Johnson Lee (who voted to recommend the program
yesterday in committee) understand the complexity of the issue and the
interrelationship of landord and tenant and, in reality, are attempting
to save a necessary city program through a revenue neutral proposal.  It
takes a clear understanding of how complicated the landlord-tenant issue
is--not an us vs. them mentality--to keep us on track to make this city
lead-free by 2010.  I'd say that this is a win-win proposal and, if you
really look at it, has benefits for everyone, especially the small
property owner who already benefits from a strong lead hazard control
program.

Finally, I understand the argument that this imposes a fee on all
landlords.  But it is minimal when compared with the overall cost of a
lead-poisoned child.  If, in addition, the landlord decides to pass the
fee directly on to a tenant, then it amounts to 25 cents per month, the
cost of a gumball.  I say, raise my rent for one gumball a month if it
means children will continue to be protected from lead-based paint
hazards.  Bring a gumball to tomorrow's hearing to make just this point.

Gregory Luce
St. Paul





TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.

________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to