RE: [Mpls] Public housing funds
Truth be told the monies and structures put in place to support affordable housing have become a monster that seeks to protect its self. Why would the city back million dollar townhomes on the river yet allow thousands of homes to be destroyed? Money and power seek money and power, this is how ssb and cherryhomes played it. I believe the admin. in power now will try to overcome the dfl, we love the developers money, to create housing for the less fortunate of mpls. Dain Lyngstad phillips/edina --- Michael Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R.T. Rybak wrote: > > > There will be more coming on this but it would be > helpful if > > people who do not live in public housing would > read these > > stories and try to become familiar...we need help > from many > > sides so we can help get these buildings the help > they need. > > I think that it is clear, that in the long run, we > should > work towards the elimination public housing. In the > short > term it appears that the agencies involved will be > able to > absorb the cuts. For instance, it is unclear to me > what > would be impact in Minneapolis given that in St. > Paul the > result would be to: > > "...lose between five and 20 jobs from the > 245-member staff. In addition, it may have to > close the waiting list for housing, suspend > non-emergency overtime and eliminate training > and travel and some offices." > > Why are they paying for non-emergency overtime and > traveling > anyway? > > I believe that we should reorient our approach to > public > housing from large public projects to serving > specific > needs and shifting to private ownership. That is to > say, > we need a provide a pathway from public housing to > private > ownership in situations where it is reasonable. It > is not > practical or cost effective to provide public > housing for > the lifetime of an individual. There are a number > of ways > that we can achieve this goal. > > 1. Provide short-term housing for the homeless. > Such housing > should be minimal. > > 2. Require that private developers allocate a > portion of their > projects be reserved as affordable housing. > > 3. Provide loan programs and training for low income > individuals > to become homeowners. > > The city already does all of these to some degree, > we just > need to focus more on the goal of eliminating public > housing > altogether. > > Michael Atherton > Prospect Park > > 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 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com 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
Re: [Mpls] Public housing funds and Quasi_Public Housing funds
RT, you may be technically correct when you say, "because there has not been new public housing built in this country in a couple decades." but you are wrong in the reality. When almost all the funding to build a housing complex, and the majority of funding for rent, comes from tax dollars, then how can these units be looked at as "Non Public Housing"? Without the "public" this housing would not, and could not exist! Let us look at an example project which I have personally supported so there does not appear to be bias against public housing. An example is "Portland Village" in my neighborhood. Please show me what is the source of "non-public dollars"? What private dollars are involved? The rents are reasonable for the residents, but are still quite high in total. The difference comes from heavy public subsidies of those rents. If 2/3 of the rent comes from public tax payers please do not tell me these are not quasi-public housing. It is not that there is no public housing being built. It is a matter of "public housing" being built with public dollars by private "Non"-Profit housing providers. This quasi-public housing thus avoids much of the constraints, regulations, and criticism of true public housing. There are approximately 800 beds of "Supportive Housing" within a one 1/4 mile circle of each other in my neighborhood of Ventura Village. If those projects were under the "Public Housing" rule, they would for sure come under the Holman Decree and be forced to relocate. As it is the City has been able to engage in this pattern of discrimination without being challenged. Until now! The "Affordable Housing" shortage is most dramatic in the "Affordable Homeownership" area. Affordable homeownership has been demonstrated to be the BEST and most "sustainable" means of stabilizing poor people's lives. Yet it is an area that seems to be totally overlooked by your present administration. In fact anything other than quasi-institutional large multi-unit buildings owned by "Non" profits seem to be the only thing receiving consideration. This is a perception on my (and other's) part. So if it is a miss-perception please correct it with the number of "affordable homeownership" units your administration has initiated. Please do not include those units coming from neighborhood NRP. If you have possibly overlooked this source of sustainable affordable housing then please realize what Habitat for Humanity and Jimmy Carter figured out a long time ago. It is "Affordable Homeownership" that changes lives and stabilizes communities. The vast majority of affordable housing comes from the private sector, not from the "Public" sector. So in this time of budget and fiscal restraint, please look to the private sector for small, affordable, rental housing. Private residents using private financing can provide far, far more affordable, and higher quality, housing than large "institutions". I know this was explained to you before, but you probably forgot with all the distractions and pressures that your office and those around you place on your time and mind. Jim Graham, Ventura Village 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
RE: [Mpls] Public housing funds
R.T. Rybak wrote: > There will be more coming on this but it would be helpful if > people who do not live in public housing would read these > stories and try to become familiar...we need help from many > sides so we can help get these buildings the help they need. I think that it is clear, that in the long run, we should work towards the elimination public housing. In the short term it appears that the agencies involved will be able to absorb the cuts. For instance, it is unclear to me what would be impact in Minneapolis given that in St. Paul the result would be to: "...lose between five and 20 jobs from the 245-member staff. In addition, it may have to close the waiting list for housing, suspend non-emergency overtime and eliminate training and travel and some offices." Why are they paying for non-emergency overtime and traveling anyway? I believe that we should reorient our approach to public housing from large public projects to serving specific needs and shifting to private ownership. That is to say, we need a provide a pathway from public housing to private ownership in situations where it is reasonable. It is not practical or cost effective to provide public housing for the lifetime of an individual. There are a number of ways that we can achieve this goal. 1. Provide short-term housing for the homeless. Such housing should be minimal. 2. Require that private developers allocate a portion of their projects be reserved as affordable housing. 3. Provide loan programs and training for low income individuals to become homeowners. The city already does all of these to some degree, we just need to focus more on the goal of eliminating public housing altogether. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
[Mpls] Public housing funds
I'm happy to see discussion of the funding issues at public housing because this is going to be a significant issues for Minneapolis. (The strib story was already posted; here's the Pioneer Press) http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5027138.htm I just got back from the U.S. Conference of Mayors where we met with both officials from HUD and advocates pressing HUD. The impact of this differs, with the administration saying the Housing Authorities will be getting about 90% of what they have a right to get, but others saying it could be less. This comes just as the Housing Authorities are trying to react to cuts in security funding and, of course, at a time when maintenance costs are significant because there has not been new public housing built in this country in a couple decades. There will be more coming on this but it would be helpful if people who do not live in public housing would read these stories and try to become familiar...we need help from many sides so we can help get these buildings the help they need. R.T.Rybak East Harriet 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
