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
