> 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.
If the city council didn't think this was good enough for the budget the first time, why hang the small landlords with the bill. Why are public health issues of all the people being paid for by renters? Why does a twenty something renter in Uptown have to pay for this? 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, Then the city should fund this department out of general funds. but--because of funding--it also > provides financial resources and other significant services above and > beyond any state and federally mandated obligations. There are other programs availible. State, Fed, County. Why does the city need to get involved? The problem is that the programs currently avail are not user friendly. If the small landlord can't cut through the red tape like full time activist lawyer, they just get abatement orders and go broke. The house gets condemned and more affordable housing gets hauled to the dump. > 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. Wrong, this proposal will fund a large contingent of "big lead" hunters. They will find lead every where. Because 95 % of the housing in Mpls has lead paint pipes solder, it's everywhere. 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. See below, we have Fed, State, County 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. Project 504 will take over the building and find the funds. The funds are going to be open to non-profits, connected developers, but not small mom and pop operators. > > 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). Let's play along for the moment. Let's assume the city puts up a couple million. In comes the mana from state and feds. 504 would have us believe that they can test, analyze, work order, abate and make all better while antagonizing the landlord (ask any landlord that has dealt with them) divide the landlord and tenant relationship ( which is more poisonus in Mpls then any city I know) pay their staff and workers and get a lead free city. Why not have the city put up the bucks, get the match from state/fed. Hire a form processor. Fill out the forms with the landlord, get the money do the work and get the test done after work is completed. Leave 504 and the vultures out of the loop. Lead abatement is still a federal function, the HUD office is handling it why are we duplicating? I believe this is just another plan for 504 to pay it's bills. Check out current statute. http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/119A/46.html This is state law with state funding. Why are landlords and their tenants going to have to pay for the following. Programs to ensure full time employment 119A.46 subd 2 Grants awarded under this section must be made in consultation with housing finance agency, reps of neighborhood groups, a labor organization, lead coalition community action agecies and the legal aid society. 119A.46 subd 2 Does anyone seeing any work getting done? I see a lot of meetings while a landlord waits with empty building and pending lawsuits unable to rent while the assembled talk a lot. There are requirements that neighborhood groups and individuals be hired as lead workers. Plans for supervision, training,CAREER DEVELOPMENT,and POST PROGRAM PLACEMENT of workers are required. I repeat, read the statute listed above. It will take you less then 3 minutes. Check out what Hennepin County just spent on Lead Abatement projects just a short time ago. http://www.co.hennepin.mn.us/pa/newreleases/03.01.28.envgrants.htm Look at those numbers, does anyone think their house or duplex could afford those kinds of bills? If there is no grant waiting, what will happen to all the work orders that Mpls is going to generate? Those houses are going to end up in the construction dump yard. Check out what the feds have to offer in lead abatement. http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/lhc/index.cfm > > 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. Examples please > > 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. Why not everyone bring 150 gumballs. That will make it all go away. Why not build 10 stadiums. Think of all the jobs. Craig Miller Former Affordable Housing Provider [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
