MPHA’s illegitimate meetings on the privatization process through R.A.D failed: They hid the negative effects of R.A.D from Elliot Twins & more

————————————————————————————————————-

What is (R.A.D) Rental Assistance Demonstration Program? It is a voluntary program from HUD that allows public housing agencies ( PHA’s) to demolish, transfer ownership of public housing properties that are in bad shape, and PHA can’t afford to take care of in order to demolish, sell the land or transfer ownership for free for private developers. Private developers then apply for tax credit to redevelop the properties into market rate, less than 25% of “affordable units” may be available at the discretion of private landlord. The previous public housing residents can’t come back because they can’t afford these units. R.A.D was supposed to be a selective pilot project for needed buildings only that are in bad shape that PHA’s can’t afford to rehab. But in the past decades, pro-developer lobbyists such as the current Executive Director of MPHA Gregory Russ, and MPHA Commissioners have embedded themselves in public housing agencies and pushed R.A.D to be applied to the best public housing properties for developers to take over, manipulate tax credits, and other affordable housing funds which led to massive displacement of extremely low-income public housing residents all over the nation.

Summary timeline about MPHA’s lack of resident engagement at Elliot Twins:

1. In 2015, Glendale Townhomes residents rejected R.A.D. MPHA targeted Glendale with intentions to sell the land to Sherman Associates because of the high-density boom happening in Glendale’s neighborhood of Prospect Park where the TCF Stadium, Green Line, and U of M are located.

2. It was recently discovered that the Elliot Twins public housing buildings next to the U.S. Bank Stadium are MPHA’s next target. Elliot Twins are in great shape and MPHA’s plan is to sell 99.9 of the building to private developers through the R.A.D program.

• On April 24, 2017, MPHA filed a letter of interest to HUD to apply for R.A.D without notifying tenants. MPHA kept this information hidden from Elliot Twins residents. DG&PHC found out recently from a blog of a developer that MPHA is pushing R.A.D on Elliot Twins.

From April 2017 to July 2018, MPHA excluded Elliot residents from all of the planning process and decision making for the R.A.D application to HUD.

• On July 28, Star Tribune publishes a profile on Gregory Russ and his plans to privatize all the public housing units in Minneapolis through, RA.D including selling the buildings through Low-Income Housing Credit.
• Residents at Elliot Twins would have to find out from this article that Greg Russ was planning to privatize their homes through R.A.D. Almost all of the Elliot Twins residents don’t have access to Star Tribune & many don’t read English.
• The following week, July 30, Greg Russ and MPHA sent letters to Elliot Twins residents informing them that there will be two information meetings about R.A.D held on August 8^th and 9^th.

3. The two informational meetings on the 8th and 9th of August weren’t legitimate because MPHA excluded residents from the planning and decision making processes involved in applying for R.A.D. Greg Russ made the decision to apply for R.A.D over 15 months ago.

• Elliot Twins residents, Glendale residents, and allies attended both of these meetings as part of Defend Glendale and Public Housing Coalition’s network and allies.
• During the two meetings, MPHA brought police and security to control senior disabled residents and their allies. MPHA announced that they have been planning this application for months, and that they spoke to residents in other buildings, the Minneapolis High-rise Council, and the tenant advisory team.
• Why would MPHA speak to residents in other buildings about Elliot Twins and not speak directly to Elliot Twins residents?
• Elliot Twins tenants who attended the meetings did not know what tenants groups or other buildings MPHA was talking about, or the tenant advisory team they said approved these plans. It was clear that tenant advisory team did not come from Elliot Twins, and that MPHA and Gregory Russ handpick them.
• In addition, Minneapolis High-rise Council (MHRC) does not represent, nor speak for the tenants of Elliot Twins. Elliot Twins tenants already wrote a complaint letter to MPHA about MHRC’s leadership Mary McGovern’s racist and xenophobic tactics including how MPHA covers for MHRC.
• Elliot Twins residents said that they don’t recognize any of the tenant groups MPHA creates because MPHA does not employ open and democratic process, which violates their own civil right.
• Elliot Twins found out for the first time at these meetings that MPHA is rushing to submit the R.A.D application because it is due to HUD on September 2018. Residents had no idea about the details of this application, or its deadline.
• MPHA failed to translate the meetings and the rights of residents in the diverse languages spoken at Elliot Twins.
• During the August 8^th meeting, MPHA insisted that residents sign-in order to make public comments. When residents who don’t speak English or know how to write their names told MPHA that they would prefer to give their names orally, MPHA refused, saying residents could not make comments unless they signed in. When it was made clear that residents’ voices were being marginalized, residents walked out. Other tenants also refused to sign in because they did not approve of MPHA’s misleading process.
• During the August 8th meeting, MPHA said residents will receive Section 8 Vouchers, or they will go on a waitlist in other public housing buildings around the city. However, the waitlist for public housing is 7 years with 17,000 waiting to get in, and no one is renting to Section 8 voucher holders. Basically, MPHA was telling resident they will be displaced.
• During the August 9^th meeting, MPHA presented the same PowerPoint presentation. Residents walked out again because MPHA told a different story about R.A.D then what they said on the 8th of August. On the 9th of August, MPHA could not answer the questions about displacement. They did not want to answer questions about Section 8 and wait list. They changed the story. So residents saw MPHA was lying. After all the Elliot residents spoke, MPHA refused to listen to comments from Glendale residents about how they previously rejected R.A.D. Mary Boler, MPHA’s Director of Public Housing physically pushed a Glendale resident from the microphone who wanted to speak. Mary grabbed the microphone, pushed the Glendale resident, and blocked the resident from providing a public comment. In addition, Jeff Horwich would not allow allies to comment as well. MPHA attempted to kick out residents for calling out MPHA’s lies, which led to the second walk out in a row.
• HUD requires that MPHA hold two informational meetings. The first meeting to decide if residents want R.A.D, and second meeting for residents to approve any plans that were discussed during the first meeting. The meetings should be some time apart.
• MPHA violated this process and held two meetings back to back providing the same information about the decision they made to apply for R.A.D over 15 months without resident notification or approval. But, during the second meeting, they omitted information they shared the first meeting and failed to answer questions about displacement.
• For MPHA, this was all to check a box in order to move forward with their application, and to do so without resident engagement or participation in the planning process of the last 15 months that excluded Elliot Twins.
• Side note: The Elliot Twins went through a major rehab less than 10 years with additions such as wifi, modernization, etc. The Elliot Twins are in excellent condition. However, it is near the U.S. Bank Stadium in downtown Minneapolis that is very attractive to developers.
• Side note: MPHA has 23 million surplus, and they received 45% increase in funding from HUD in 2018, and this increase will continue in 2019.
• Side note: MPHA refused to lobby for extra funds from City of Minneapolis and State. MPHA did not lobby for the $5 million bonding bill former State Rep. Phyllis Kahn wrote for Glendale in 2016 to keep Glendale public when MPHA wanted to convert Glendale to R.A.D. Therefore, MPHA does not have money issues. MPHA does not want to preserve Elliot Twins as public housing and a public good through available public funds. MPHA want to “Sell, Sell, Sell” as their consultant Peter Hendee Brown advised.
• MPHA’s lack of funds is false narrative they want to use to sell Elliot Twins like they tried in Glendale. MPHA is using the same false tactics they tried in Glendale at Elliot Twins.
• Side note: Greg Russ also knows many union jobs will be lost once he finds a way to dismantle Elliot Twins, and the rest of the public housing.

4. MPHA’s meetings on August 8th and 9th were not legitimate because they hid GAO report findings about R.A.D from Elliot Twins and the rest of the public housing residents

MPHA didn’t share with Elliot Twins and the rest of the public housing population important information about US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report regarding how the R.A.D program is putting public housing residents at risk of chronic displacement around the nations. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-123. MPHA purposefully failed to share this information.

GOA report states:

• “HUD does not systematically use its data systems to track effects of RAD conversions on resident households (such as changes in rent and income, or relocation) or monitor use of all resident safeguards. Without a comprehensive review of household information and procedures for fully monitoring all resident safeguards, HUD cannot fully assess the effects of RAD on residents. HUD officials stated that HUD intends to develop procedures to identify and respond to risks to long-term affordability, including default or foreclosure in RAD properties. However, HUD has not done so”

• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), who called for the GAO report, summarizes key

findings of the report as follows: “Despite RAD’s potential to have serious, negative impacts on tenants( such as changes in rent or relocation), HUD is failing to adequately track these impacts and monitor potential violations of resident rights under relevant statutes and HUD policies.”

 

As public housing residents, the experience of forced relocation is displacement, loss of community and gentrification. MPHA is using R.A.D as a tool to privatize, sell, gentrify, and displace low income senior community and tenants. MPHA is not using R.A.D to preserve public housing as a public good.

This is an important report because in MPHA’s presentation on RAD, on August 8^th and 9^th, to Elliot Twins residents, MPHA officials stressed that residents could count on MPHA keeping its R.A.D promises of no displacement, right of return, no rent change, etc.) because HUD will make sure MPHA honors these rights. We know that HUD can’t enforce MPHA to make sure residents are not displaced. We also know that once residents are displaced from their community at Elliot Twins, they will not come back. This is a national trend GAO report admits to. GAO finds that HUD does not have effective monitoring systems in place around these rights to make sure residents are not displaced. MPHA can’t make false promises to residents they can’t keep. MPHA knew about this nationwide study/ report, but MPHA never mentioned this report to its residents at Elliot Twins during August 8th and 9th R.A.D meetings, and they not inform other public housing about this report. MPHA hid this information from residents in order to mislead them to blindly accept R.A.D program. This is deception that puts residents at risk of homelessness and displacement. It is MPHA’s duty to share such important information with resident to protect their civil rights. We believe MPHA did this on purpose and violated residents’ rights to information to protect their rights in order to rush their privatization plans through R.A.D.

Conclusion:

In order to build trust with residents and the rest of Minneapolis community, MPHA must stop lying to the community and tenants of public housing. MPHA must be transparent as to why they want to use R.A.D at Elliot Twins, which is not about the lack of funds, but it is about selling well-built and rehabbed buildings to developers because it is near U.S. Bank Stadium. MPHA must be honest that Elliot Twins community will lose their community, and will be displaced once they are forced to move out. The GAO report stated that residents are facing displacement due to R.A.D. In addition, MPHA does not have any public housing homes for residents to move to currently once they move them out of Elliot Twins. MPHA can’t write a contract with the residents that state residents will move back to their same apartments with the same rent of 30% income as a public housing buildings. MPHA must be honest that they don’t want to access available public funds to keep public housing public, but that their main goal is to “Sell, Sell, Sell”. MPHA must admit that after MPHA turns 99.9% ownership of the Elliot Twins to private developers, MPHA will have no control over the buildings, leases, etc. After MPHA turns the buildings over to the developers, the buildings will be privatized to majority luxury condos with few “affordable units” at below market rate that poor tenants of Elliot Twins can’t afford to rent. The tenants can’t return to due to long waitlist, or they won’t be qualified to rent due to their low- income, and other barriers the private developers creates to deter low-income renters from coming back to their community. In the meantime, during conversion process to R.A.D, vulnerable seniors tenants of Elliot Twins who are majority disabled will be displaced because there are no public housing units available. MPHA has a waitlist of 17,000 people over 7 years waiting to access public housing currently, and no one takes Section 8 vouchers in the private market. These are the two false options MPHA offered to residents on August 8^th. MPHA is willing to say anything to convince residents to move out. After resident move out, they are out of MPHA’s hands, which is displacement. Who will be responsible for this intentional housing crisis that MPHA is creating?

Sources:

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-123.
ttps://www.dgphc.org/2018/08/02/sell-sell-sell-says-peter-hendee-brown-mpha-consultant-mpha-moves-quickly-to-dismantle-public-housing-and-displace-vulnerable-residents-starting-with-elliot-twins-in-ward-6/
https://tinyurl.com/HF3212-0-by-Kahn

 

The pro-forma, after-the-fact “process” that MPHA is providing for Elliot Twin Tower residents in two short back-to-back “information” meetings scheduled for August 8 and 9 is, of course, worse than no process at all.

MPHA’s scheduled meetings with Elliot Twin Towers residents, meetings at which residents will receive MPHA’s official line about HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, the program that MPHA has already decided to use, without required resident and community participation, to convert Elliot Twin Towers from public housing status to privatized Section 8 properties, are no substitute for meaningful consultation. In fact, MPHA’s entire redevelopment process to-date (including MPHA’s “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan for 2018- 2020” adopted May 26, 2018 and subsequently-called Elliot Twin Tower resident meetings) is illegitimate, having been conducted in complete violation of the resident and public engagement requirements that MPHA publicly adopted last year.

In guidelines formally adopted by MPHA Commissioners on May 24, 2017, MPHA promised to promote active participation of residents and community members throughout the redevelopment planning and implementation process.1 In flagrant violation of these public engagement requirements, MPHA has blithely put a cynical cart before the horse, making key redevelopment decisions without resident and community knowledge and input to convert all its public housing properties to Section 8 properties under HUD’s RAD program, a program that MPHA leadership must know (but is unlikely to have shared with Commissioners and residents!) has received a strongly-worded review from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February 2018. The GAO found, for example, that HUD has failed to put in place responsible measures to ensure that resident rights are safeguarded under RAD.2

What is to be done? How about restorative justice?

Justice requires that MPHA’s violations of its resident and community participation obligations must have consequences. For every wrong, a remedy. And MPHA officials have publicly said (while perhaps not ever believing a day of reckoning would come) that they expects the community to hold them accountable to comply with these guidelines.

A reasonable restorative accountability consequence would be that MPHA do more than simply acknowledge its transgression, say “Oops! Sorry!” and move ahead with its secretly formulated RAD-reliant plans that residents and community members have no hand in evaluating and shaping. MPHA may yet be influenced to see the wisdom and justice of doing a complete re-set: to begin its redevelopment process over, this time proceeding as required by MPHA’s own guidelines, in an open, transparent fashion, actively encouraging resident and community participation throughout, from beginning (open selection of consultants to aid the process, if any) to conclusion, as MPHA’s guidelines require.

What a concept! Doing what they said they would do. Keeping their word.

Peter W. Brown

See also statement of U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), member and former chair of the National Black Caucus (March 22, 2018):

Despite RAD’s potential to have serious, negative impacts on tenants (such as changes in rent or relocation), HUD is failing to adequately track these impacts and monitor potential violations of resident rights under relevant statutes and HUD policies.

 

1: See “MPHA’s “Guiding Principles for Redevelopment and Capital Investments at MPHA” online at http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Guiding-Principles-for-Redevelopment- and-Capital-Investments-at-MPHA.pdf in which MPHA pledges that it . . .

• “…will engage in a public, portfolio-wide planning process to assess the needs and mission- oriented opportunities at all properties owned by MPHA. . .”

• “…will encourage active and meaningful resident and community participation throughout the planning and implementation process, . . .”

• “…intends that residents participate and contribute to the planning and design discussions.”

2: See US General Accountability Office (GAO) Report (February 22, 2018):

HUD does not systematically use its data systems to track effects of RAD conversions on resident households (such as changes in rent and income, or relocation) or monitor use of all resident safeguards. ….. Without a comprehensive review of household information and procedures for fully monitoring all resident safeguards, HUD cannot fully assess the effects of RAD on residents. ….. HUD officials stated that HUD intends to develop procedures to identify and respond to risks to long-term affordability, including default or foreclosure in RAD properties. However, HUD has not yet done so.

 

Resident Centered Resolution to Keep Public Housing Public:
Making Minneapolis a National Leader in Protecting Public Housing as a Public Good

WHEREAS, housing is a human right; and

WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis is facing a housing crisis; and

WHEREAS, this housing crisis has caused a homelessness crisis; and

WHEREAS, ensuring all residents have decent and stable housing that is affordable (30% of their income) to Minneapolis residents is an important priority concern of this Mayor and City Council; and

WHEREAS, building more public housing that is 100% publicly owned is the best way to do so; and

WHEREAS, 25,000 Minneapolis residents currently live in public housing, with tens of thousands more on the waiting list; all are poor, and over 80% are people of color, immigrants, refugees, seniors and people with disabilities; and

WHEREAS, it is important to clarify that housing that is most often publicly described as “affordable” is not affordable for low-income households; and

WHEREAS, there is an increased support for funding public housing at the Federal, State, and Local levels; and

WHEREAS, indicative of this change the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority received increased funding from HUD in 2018, including a 45% increase in Capital Funding; and

WHEREAS, the Draft 2019 Federal Spending Bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee further increases Federal funding for public housing; and

WHEREAS, preventing the long term loss of homes requires building more public housing as a public good; and

WHEREAS, over 18,000 people have signed a petition to keep public housing in Minneapolis public; and

WHEREAS, the City Council rejects the notion that preserving or expanding public housing requires privatization, including any method of privatization, be it Section 8 privatization, RAD, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Section 18 Disposition, and others; and

WHEREAS, MPHA has recently informed members of the City Council and Mayor of their “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan for 2018-2020,” a plan to privatize public housing properties by transferring ownership of its publicly owned properties to a private non-profit corporation pursuant to the HUD-administered Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) and to cancel all current public housing leases and replace them with Section 8 vouchers, a process which was rejected by residents at the Glendale Townhomes in 2015; and

WHEREAS, Section 8 has failed residents throughout the nation and Twin Cities, and MPHA’s current plans to displace low-income seniors on fixed incomes out of public housing, and their community, and give them Section 8 vouchers would worsen the chronic homelessness crisis among seniors; and

WHEREAS, residents of public housing have rights as guaranteed under Federal, State, Local, and International Human Rights laws which must be respected and enforced; and

WHEREAS, relocation is displacement, and research from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs has found that as few as 1 in 5 relocated residents may return to their homes, but the real experiences of these residents is that they never come back; and

WHEREAS, MPHA is unable to make any promises as to the future of residents at any properties whose ownership and control has been transferred to private entities; and

WHEREAS, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority was created by the City Council and in significant part relates to the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor pursuant to the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 420; and

WHEREAS, the MPHA has responsibility as a public agency to maintain public housing properties as a public good and, pursuant to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 420, to file quarterly reports with the City and comply with the City’s community engagement process; and

WHEREAS, in violation of the Chapter 420’s reporting requirements MPHA has not filed quarterly reports with the City Council and, in violation of MPHA, HUD, and City community engagement policies, and has failed to actively encourage resident and community participation in the 8 month redevelopment planning process that produced MPHA’s “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan,” a plan which will displace thousands of people from MPHA’s high-rises through RAD and Section 8 privatization and displacement; and

WHEREAS, MPHA has deliberately hid the dangers of the RAD privatization mechanism from public housing residents as documented by their decision to file a Letter of Intent to privatize the Elliot Twins, located in Ward 6, in 2017 without informing either residents or the city; and

WHEREAS, public housing in Minneapolis is important to its residents, and the City Council and Mayor seek an open working partnership with resident leaders and organizers who are working hard to save public housing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council are not persuaded that any form of privatization of Minneapolis public housing stock, whether via transfer of ownership to a private, non-public entity, sale to a private developer, or otherwise, is warranted; and

WHEREAS, a February 2018 GAO report called for by Rep. Maxine Waters documents the lack of accountability for the dangers of the RAD program because HUD has been unwilling or unable to take responsible steps to ensuring the safety of residents in the nation-wide RAD redevelopment process, which underlines the importance of City Council and Mayoral vigilant involvement; and

WHEREAS, the residents at the first two properties scheduled for privatization through RAD (Elliot Twin Towers and Glendale Townhomes) include a high percentage of East African Somali and Oromo seniors and elders, and MPHA’s plans would result in disparate impact as defined by the Fair Housing Act; and

WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis has long prioritized subsidies for landlords and developers over funding for public housing;  

NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis:

1. That any plan for public housing that is not created, supported, and approved by residents is not legitimate.

2. That any plan that require residents to be relocated for redevelopment purposes is displacement.

3. That any plan that transfers public housing to private Section 8 ownership, or any other form of privatization, dismantles public housing as a public good.
   
   
4. Section 8 vouchers are not a replacement for public housing.
   
   
5. That “deeply subsidized” or “deeply affordable” housing is not the same thing as public housing or income based housing at 30% of income for rent.
   
   
6. The City of Minneapolis will exercise its authority, good offices, and public voice to oppose all forms of privatization of public housing in Minneapolis, including RAD, LIHTC, removal of DOT,  and to
   a) screen disinvestment history and any plans for public housing, including but not limited to Glendale in Ward 2, Elliot Twins in Ward 6, Rainbow Terrace in Ward 5, and Friendly and Spring Manors in Ward 3, for disparate racial, ethnic, religious impact;
   b) protect all public housing and build more; and
   c) oppose the sale and lease or transfer of ownership of public housing buildings; d) eliminate future displacements; e) fund public housing as a public good;
   f) hold MPHA accountable to fix and repair properties (such as Elliot Twins and Glendale Townhomes

7. Exercise due diligence in monitoring that the requirements of  a) Chapter 420; b) MPHA’s Community Engagement obligations; The 1980 Minneapolis City’s special law that limits the power of MPHA and d) federal safeguards are followed.

8. Earn a position of state and national leadership by guaranteeing housing as a human right by funding public housing , keeping public housing public  as a public good, and adhering to this Resolution.

(PDF Here: Resident Centered Resolution, July 30, 2018)

Scattered Sites into Fourplexes: A Factsheet

MPHA’s Annual 2019 MTW Report Reveals Plans to Privatize Over 730 Single Family Units, Transforming Them Into the Fourplexes that Mayor Frey & the 2040 Comp Plan Endorse.

Introduction/Background

On July 20th, 2018 , MPHA released their 2019 MTW Annual Plan, http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2019-MTW-Annual-Plan-DRAFT-for-public-review.pdf

they plan to submit to HUD by October 18, 2018 for approval. ~To remind our allies, the MTW Annual report is their annual report where MPHA has deregulation status from HUD and Ben Carson where HUD basically allows MPHA to be flexible on how they spend funds, new housing initiatives, etc as long as the local community, City and residents are engaged and approve their plans and process.~ This annual report details their operations and programs and investments they plan to implement for the following year. They must submit this report each year. For the 2018, MPHA introduced a plan to start their privatization agenda by asking the HUD to waive the DOT( Declaration of Trust) that protects the public housing from being privatized. As far as we know, HUD has rejected these proposals and MPHA had to submit their application again. HUD has yet to approve MPHA’s 2018 MTW Annual plan that will privatize some of their properties.

Even though MPHA tried to use non-threatening language in their 2019 MTW Annual Plan, the 85 page report explains in detail how MPHA will privatize, dismantle public housing units and displace their low-income residents. In the coming week DG&PHC will share an in-depth analysis of this report. In this statement we want bring your attention to a specific proposal in the report where MPHA details how they plan to demolish and dispose of over 730 single family public housing homes that are cheaper to build fourplexes. This is in line with Mayor Jacob Frey and Minneapolis City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to build fourplexes by demolishing small to medium size family homes thereby displacing poor families with children, doubling the property taxes of the neighborhoods and more. See page 8 to 9 where MPHA explains their process to accomplishing this goal. http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2019-MTW-Annual-Plan-DRAFT-for-public-review.pdf

Pg. 8 -9: MPHA calls this section : “Preserving and stabilizing MPHA Scattered Sites through Section 18”

• Scattered sites are over 730 single family homes that are public where low-income families with children reside.
• These homes are located throughout the majority of the city’s wards.
• Section 18: Demolition and Disposition of Public Housing. This is the process by which scattered sites will be demolished. The link below explains this process.
• https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/demodispopihsection18.pdf
• Public housing authorities usually apply for Section 18 from HUD when properties are in such bad physical conditions that the housing authority can’t repair or rehab them, making the properties unsuitable to house families.

On Page 8, MPHA writes: “Under HUD’s Section 18 process, MPHA would transfer ownership

(HUD calls this process “disposition”) of the scattered sites (AMP 2) to a non-profit established and fully controlled by MPHA.” This sentence means the following:

• MPHA will remove the public ownership and privatize over 730 small family public housing homes and turn over the homes to a private non-profit corporation that MPHA will become, leaving no city, state, or federal oversight. MPHA does not want to be a public agency anymore. If the City and HUD approve, there will be no public accountability from City, State, or HUD. This is privatization.
• The 730 family homes will then be eligible to be sold by this non-profit corporation and flip the homes.

On page 8, MPHA writes: “This necessary step would allow MPHA to apply for Section 8 Tenant Protection Vouchers (TPVs) which would provide a higher level of funding for each family than under the current public housing structure. Residents may agree to project-base TPVs in the scattered site units they occupy. “ This sentence means the following:

• TPV(Tenant Protection Voucher) is a Section 8 Voucher that low-income families can use to find rental housing in the private market. Rent is 30% of income for rent.
• MPHA as a the new private non-profit corporation will then become the owner of former MPHA properties and land. The private non-profit corporation will apply for Section 8 Funding- the “ higher level of funding” from the “affordable housing funds” from City, State, County and Federal to redevelop the homes into fourplexes or any other private development the city allows.
• Before any redevelopment takes place, the low-income public housing families will be given an option to move out with a Section 8 voucher. Due to gentrification many are no longer renting to Section 8 families.

On Page 9, MPHA writes: “ Physical condition of a scattered site property may be such that it is unsustainable in the near-term even under the increased subsidy. In these cases—which MPHA will identify as we explore our HUD Section 18 application—MPHA would seek HUD approval for other outcomes that would allow us to serve the same or more families (for example, by rebuilding a fourplex where a single-family home once stood). Families in these homes would receive TPVs and full relocation benefits, to which they are entitled by law. If they choose, we would accommodate them elsewhere within our scattered site portfolio” This sentence means the following:

• MPHA will evaluate the 730 plus family homes stage by stage as unsuitable and uninhabitable for families in order to apply for Section 18, despite homes being in good structural shape and condition The city will not object to this because MPHA has been doing its own inspections for decades even though according to City’s Ordinances 420 and Special Law passed in 1980 limits the power of MPHA and gives greater legal oversight to the City of Minneapolis. https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2018-00866
• Note the MPHA sentence: “ unsustainable near-term even under the increased subsidy.” this means once the corporation takes over the property and gets all of the “affordable funds”, it can say, ‘oh well we tried to keep the property but we need to demolish because of its condition.’ And then flip it to fourplexes.
• This will then allow the rebuilding of fourplex in the land that these small family homes were once located.
• These Fourplexes are the same plans that Mayor Jacob Frey and the 2040 Comprehensive Plans have been promoting.
• The fourplexes will not be rehousing former tenants because they will have been built for the wealthy. By the time the fourplexes are built the tenants will be displaced and priced out of their former neighborhood.

• The families may receive 3 months to 30 day notices to vacate their homes and find housing with their Section 8 Vouchers. Learn more here: Sahrooni’s Story About Section 8 Voucher System
• The neighborhoods that lose public housing to fourplexes will become more expensive.
• The property taxes for working class home owners will increase to a point of possible foreclosures at risk.
• Corporations will become the new landlords of the city, promoting luxury fourplexes and buildings.
• Mayor Jacob Frey and MPHA have built a strong partnership to dismantle over 730 public housing family homes for Fourplexes for the rich.

On page 7, MPHA writes: “Private investment for rehabilitation and repair—with

underlying public control and public management—is not privatization. Redevelopment and reinvestment—without displacement—is not gentrification.”

This means that MPHA’s 42 high-rises, over 730 homes, Glendale Townhomes and more public housing units that are now 100% public, will become 100% private, which will displace tens of thousands of low-income people of color, immigrants, refugees, seniors, families with children, and disabled folk…

• A diverse pool of private developers will take over 99.9% of the ownership of the properties with no charge to them, in addition to “ affordable housing funds”.
• The underlying public control MPHA mentions is 0.01% which will not even be public, as MPHA will be a private non-profit corporation with no public accountability with no city, state, county or federal oversight.
• Redevelopment and reinvestment with private investment is displacement and gentrification. Over 26,000 people will be pushed out of Minneapolis through the destruction of public housing in Minneapolis.

Another discrepancy

For the past four years and as recent as 2017 MPHA stated that they have 6,241 public housing units in stock and now according to their website MPHA has  5940 public housing units. MPHA is not able to explain to the public what happened to 101 public housing units and to the tenants that lived in these units. MPHA needs to share with the public where these homes disappeared without public knowledge because they are a public agency with public accountability.                       

Lack of resident notification at the public housing units.

• MPHA sent a letter notifying residents that the 2019 MTW Plan has come out and if they want to read it they have to go online.
• MPHA stated that if residents want to comment on this report they have to comment online by sending an email.
• MPHA knows a majority of public housing residents do not have access to computers and may not have emails accounts.
• MPHA also knows that more than half of their public housing population don’t speak English.

Despite these violations, MPHA sent out these notices on their website: mphaonline.org

• Aug. 15: Informational presentations held from 1 to 3 pm and 5 to 7 pm at 1815 Central Avenue in Minneapolis.
• Aug. 22: Public hearing following MPHA Board of Commissioners regular 1:30 pm monthly meeting at 1001 Washington Avenue North in Minneapolis.
• Aug. 27: Deadline for MPHA to receive public comment on the draft MTW Annual Plan.
• Sept. 26: Board final review and vote.
• Oct. 18: Plan due to HUD.
• To leave public comment on the draft MTW Annual Plan, email MTW@MplaPHA.org, or mail to MPHA MTW Comments, Room 204, 1001 Washington Avenue N. Minneapolis, MN 55401. The comment deadline is August 27, 2018.

There is no avenue for residents that don’t have computers or those that don’t speak English comment to this plan.

(PDF Here: Scattered Sites into Fourplexes A Factsheet)

 

July 26, 2018

“Forget About the Section 8 Voucher and Keep Your Public Housing”
A Message from a Section 8 Resident who is Experiencing Displacement through Section 8

Sahrooni, photographed at left outside her home, is a Somali immigrant, a young mother of two, and a Section 8 voucher recipient. She moved to the Twin Cities from Boston about 4 years ago, and currently lives with her two children at the Normandale Lake Estates apartment complex in Bloomington. However, for the second time in two years, Sahrooni is being forced to move after new owners purchased the building and evicted tenants in order to “flip” the building. The new owners have told residents that they will no longer be accepting Section 8. Adding to the trauma, stress, and financial burden that accompanies this kind of housing instability, Sahrooni and other Section 8 voucher holders face a frightening prospect: Section 8 requires that voucher holders find housing within three months or forfeit their voucher.

For many voucher holders, a loss of their voucher means a loss of housing altogether. These Section 8 voucher holders choose to remain in the program in spite of the constant threat of eviction and upheaval because their only alternative is homelessness. According to MPR, when the Metropolitan Council opened their Section 8 waiting list in 2015, they received over 36,000 applications for 2,000 spots.¹ This is a reflection not of the program’s effectiveness, but of the depth of the housing crisis.

Sahrooni has agreed to share her story with Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition so that we can bring her knowledge and experience to a broader audience. Sahrooni feels strongly that the Section 8 program does not work for residents like her. Given MPHA’s current plans to privatize public housing and replace it with the Section 8 program, her story is a critically important one.

“It Makes Me Not Want To Live Here Anymore”

Sahrooni had been living at the Crossroads at Penn apartment complex in Richfield with her family for about a year when she and around 670 other renters were evicted in late 2015. In a case that has become well publicized, Sahrooni and her fellow tenants were displaced when new owners purchased the building and rebranded it as “The Concierge.” Sahrooni had an eight day old daughter when she was given her 30-day notice to vacate. “It was discrimination. He (the new owner) wanted young white people to live there, not families and Section 8 holders, or Africans, and Latinx people.”

Although Sahrooni and other displaced residents did receive $1,500 from a settlement negotiated with the building’s new owners by the Housing Justice Center and Homeline, it didn’t even cover her costs. “I had to pay a deposit, I had to pay the movers. It cost $2,500.” Making this worse, Sahrooni just received payment earlier this year, more than two years after her move. “It was a ripoff,” she says, pointing out how much of the settlement went to lawyers and developers rather than the displaced tenants.

A few months after their eviction, Sahrooni and her family (along with other families from Crossroads) moved into the Normandale Lake Estates apartment complex in Bloomington.

But less than two years after they moved to their new home, Sahrooni received notice that her new home, Normandale Lake Estates, had been purchased, and that she had 30 days to vacate. “It was horrible. When you move in, after a year you find out this place has been sold. It makes me not want to live here anymore”. Although Sahrooni has negotiated an extension not to be displaced right away while she searches for a new home, the notice had the desired effect. The buildings now sit almost entirely empty while the new owners begin to remodel the buildings in order to justify the $300-$400 monthly rent increase. “I feel depressed and sad,” she says.

She worries about other residents who were displaced. “I’m healthy and I’m a strong woman and I know that I can do this, but other people are disabled.” She tells us about a family she knows who had to move away. “They couldn’t afford the rent, so they moved to Green Bay. But right now I am helping them find a new place. The mother is blind, the daughter is disabled, and the other has mental illness. They can’t find a home. I am trying to help them find a place they can call home.”

Like many other low-income tenants, Sahrooni works hard to help her fellow tenants find homes, even as she herself struggles to find housing. If Sahrooni is unable to find housing by September, she will be homeless. If that were to happen, she would face the additional threat of losing her Section 8 voucher.

Photograph of Normandale Lake Estates

When asked about how Section 8 works, Sahrooni is clear. “It doesn’t work. How can you save money when every two years you have to move?” Sahrooni has two young children, but her constant upheaval prevents her from finding childcare for her children. She fears how this instability may impact her children as they get older and become aware of what is going on.

Her experience is mirrored across the nation, as more and more Section 8 voucher recipients struggle to find and keep housing with their vouchers. Studies conducted around the country show that large percentages of Section 8 voucher recipients are forced to give up their voucher

because they are unable to find housing using it. One study in California found that up to 64% of Section 8 voucher recipients had to give up their voucher². Even those who find housing are not safe. Sahrooni’s experience demonstrates how Section 8 voucher recipients can be displaced if their building owner decides to sell it off to investors who raise the rent.

Compounding this problem is the racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia Sahrooni, a Somali immigrant, faces. During her search for a new home, Sahrooni viewed or called 15-20 apartments. She sometimes faced hostility and discrimination. She recounts one experience at a building in South Minneapolis where a property manager kept requesting more and more documentation, always telling her they needed more documents, even when she provided what they asked for. When Minneapolis’ new ordinance barring discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders was overturned, this manager told Sahrooni that because they were no longer required to accept Section 8 voucher holders, they would not accept her application. “It was discrimination,” she says.

Sahrooni’s story is just one story among thousands. Across the Twin Cities and across the nation, more and more low-income residents are finding that the Section 8 program does not work as advertised.

A Brief History of the Section 8 Program

The Section 8 program was created in 1974 when Gerald Ford signed the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) into law.³ Although Section 8 is often described as a subsidy for low-income households, the program actually subsidizes landlords, who receive Section 8 payments directly from the government. Under the program, renters originally paid 25% (raised to 30% in 1981) of their income in rent, with the government paying the difference between that amount and a predetermined “Fair Market Rent” (FMR).

The act was written in response to Richard Nixon’s moratorium on HUD spending in early 1973, motivated by his opposition to public housing. Deciding “to shift housing policy away from the large production programs,” Nixon proposed instead “direct housing allowances for low-income citizens.”⁴ With the spending moratorium as leverage, Richard Nixon’s administration negotiated the HCDA, which was signed by Gerald Ford less than two weeks after he took office. According to the New York Times, the New York HUD Director revealed another motivation for the Section 8 program: wealthy communities often fought against proposed public housing buildings and homes in their neighborhoods.⁵ In other words, wealthy white neighborhoods did not want low-income housing in their neighborhoods, a dynamic which continues to perpetuate income and racial segregation. The voluntary nature of the Section 8 voucher program was intended to negate this issue.

From the beginning, Section 8 had its critics. A 1973 New York Times article outlining Nixon’s housing agenda (including a new focus on vouchers rather than building and providing housing directly), includes a quote from the well known African American Civil Rights lawyer Percy Sutton who described the plan to move to a voucher system as putting “the slum landlord on

welfare,” adding that because the program “does nothing to increase the available supply of decent housing,” rent levels would go up.⁶ Because of this opposition, the Section 8 program still built or rehabbed new units in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s administration that the full-fledged voucher system we know today really began to take off, with a 1981 New York Times article characterizing Reagan’s approach as a “shift from new production subsidies to the voucher approach.”⁷ But since at least Nixon’s administration, the general trend in housing policy has been increased funding and emphasis on the Section 8 program for landlords and the private market, and declining emphasis and funding for public housing.

Understanding the history of Section 8 is important because it reveals a hidden truth: although the stated goal of the Section 8 program is to help low-income families find housing, the motivation underlying its creation was the termination of public housing in favor of a market-based housing program. Knowing this helps us make sense of how the program currently works (or, more accurately, doesn’t work) in the Twin Cities and around the nation.

MPHA’s Current Plans to Convert Public Housing to Section 8

In spite of the well documented issues with Section 8, desperate renters still flock the program. Meanwhile, MPHA has proposed a radical plan to “Change the Subsidy,” by moving all of the current residents in public housing, over 11,000 low-income people of color, 75% Black, Black Muslims, and disabled, elders, families with children that live in over 740 homes, 42 high- rise buildings, Glendale Townhomes and more, to Project Based Section 8 vouchers in order to sell 99.99% ownership of public housing buildings to private investors. The private developers will essentially get these buildings for free because they will apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, other tax credits, and “affordable housing funds” from the City of Minneapolis, State, and Federal Government. History shows that these private owners will displace residents, just like what is happening to Sahrooni, and the thousands of residents who have Section 8 but can’t find housing. Since MPHA was not successful in displacing residents by directly selling their buildings, now they want to displace residents by using the Section 8 Voucher system by turning the buildings over to private owners. MPHA will then let the private owners displace and evict residents because MPHA will turn 99.99% of the control and ownership over to these private investors. At that point neither MPHA nor the City of Minneapolis, or any other government, will have any mechanism to prevent this crisis from happening. If MPHA does move to a Section 8 system, these Section 8 waitlists will be increased substantially, as MPHA would be taking vouchers away from households who have been on the waiting list for as long as 7 to 10 years. These vouchers will be given to public housing residents, which will displace them. This plan would be a disaster, and will change the City of Minneapolis forever for the worse.

Sahrooni’s Message

We asked Sahrooni if public housing residents should accept MPHA’s plans and take Section 8 vouchers. She was adamant:

“No! Public housing is better. Forget about the Section 8 voucher and keep your public housing. If MPHA follow their plans, it will cause homelessness, people will lose their jobs and their home. They will not have their own place, they will not have an address. They will not have a community. It’s going to be a crisis.”

“People say ‘Oh we don’t take (the Section 8 voucher). We used to take it, but we don’t anymore.” They say it is because of paperwork but it is really discrimination. They want people to be homeless. It’s really really bad. It’s a crisis. I am blaming Donald Trump and Ben Carson.”

But Sahrooni’s experience also shows that local politicians are complicit in this crisis. “The DFL politicians are not protecting us. If they were, we would not be losing money and facing homelessness.”

Conclusion

Section 8 is not working for low- income residents. Residents are forced to use Section 8 to avoid homelessness, but many are unable to find housing with their voucher. Those that do face evictions and uncertainty. Each time they are evicted, they risk losing their voucher and becoming homeless. The history of Section 8 shows how it was always designed to push people onto the private market by subsidizing landlords instead of providing housing for those in need. MPHA’s plans supported by Mayor Jacob Frey are just the latest chapter in this long history. Minneapolis has the chance to save public housing, and to build new public housing for the future. Instead, they want to use the broken Section 8 program to privatize. But residents like Sahrooni are speaking out and sharing their story.

“I’m glad I’m talking about it. It’s wrong what (the people who bought Crossroads and Normandale Lake Estates) did. No one said sorry. Thanks to Allah because I want others to hear. I want people to be able to protect themselves. People need to find out if their place is going to be sold. People need to know their rights.”’

(PDF of this article here: Sahrooni’s Story About Section 8 Voucher System)

Comments to the Minneapolis City’s Housing Policy and Development Committee Regarding the Relationship between MPHA and City Council
July 25, 2018

We commend the Housing Policy and Development Committee, and it’s Chair Council Member Cam Gordon for initiating a process for clarifying the relationship between MPHA and the City Council. We welcome the City Attorney’s report https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2018-00866 as a good start on this important conversation. A conversation that is so important to good, effective, and prudent governance, and protection of valuable public assets that are in such critical need by thousands of residents of Minneapolis.

Due to the importance of the public understanding of this relationship, and the acknowledgement that the City Council retains the legal authority, (and hence the special responsibility), to exercise important areas of monitoring the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, and through ordinance, amendment, City provides additional direction as deemed needed, in addition to its responsibility as the City’s elected legislative body to use its good offices to do what it can to protect its residents from bad public policy, we urge the Committee not to quit on this conversation just as it is getting started. Instead, we ask City Council to open a 60 day public comment period to help spotlight the full extent of the current legal and work-a-day relationship, and examine ways to improve the City Council’s ability to exercise due diligence oversight of MPHA plans, and operations that impact the lives of so many Minneapolis residents.

The City Attorney’s report is particularly helpful in correcting the often stated notion that MPHA is a completely, and irrevocably an independent political body over which the City Council permanently has no say, no opening, or no business even to say anything about MPHA plans , and operations regardless of how imprudent and harmful to Minneapolis residents those plans and operations are. It is clear from this report that MPHA is and remains subject to City Council ordinances and monitoring as underlined by the City Attorney’s. For example:

1) That under Minneapolis Ordinance Chapter 420, MPHA has been and is obligated to report quarterly to the City Council and, in addition, respond to questions posed by the Mayor and City Council;

2) That the Mayor and City Council have authority under Chapter 420 not only to appoint, but to remove the Commissioners they have appointed, with or without cause. This last part (“with or without cause”) is quite important because it means the Mayor and City Council retain considerable oversight authority, and can remove Commissioners, for example, for taking positions or pursuing plans and making decisions that, in the Mayor and City Council’s view are wrong public policy; and

3) That the 1980 Special Law that authorized the City to create the new specifically provided that the City may, by ordinance, impose limitations on the actions of the new agency.

The City Attorney’s Report is very helpful. But, we have spotted in the short time we had to review it since it was posted, a few relevant items in the City’s Code of Ordinances missing from the report that bear on the City’s on-going authority and responsibility over the MPHA. We recommended for more analysis from City’s Attorney’s Office. For example:

1. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (Chapter 420.40) includes this: “. . . all commissioners shall be appointed in conformance with the city’s open appointments process unless otherwise specifically provided therein.” Chapter 14.180, the ordinance prescribing the city’s open appointment process does NOT exempt MPHA Commissioners from the open appointments process.
2. Statement of Economic Interest filing requirements: Chapter 15.80 (a)(4) requires MPHA Commissioners to file with the City Clerk an initial Statement of Economic Interest and thereafter annual Statements of Economic Interest. Have the Commissioners been in complaint with this Chapter 15.80 (a((4)? This is not some long-forgotten ordinance from ages ago. See this ordinance with strikeouts and adds as amended most recently (Jan. 15, 2016) at https://library.municode.com/mn/minneapolis/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=753026 .

The memorandum provided by the MPHA providing a list of its resident participation requirements omits substantial sources of its resident participation obligations, and the violations they are committing now:

1. City Council Resolution 2015R-402 (October 9, 2015), authored by Council Members Goodman and Gordon, in which the City Council has unanimously required that the planning process for Glendale Townhomes be “an open, transparent public process that will include participation of the neighborhood association and Glendale residents.” Online at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@chttp://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@council/documents/proceedings/wcms1p-150422.pdfouncil/documents/proceedings/wcms1p-150422.pdf. MPHA has failed to have an open and transparent public process when regarding their continued plans to demolish Glendale, privatize the land, and displace residents.

2. MPHA’s own “Guiding Principles” adopted by MPHA Board of Commissioners (May 24, 2017)include several promises to honor what it says is the residents’ “right to participate”:

• MPHA will engage in a public, portfolio-wide planning process to assess the needs and mission-oriented opportunities at all properties
• MPHA will encourage active and meaningful resident and community participation throughout the planning and implementation process, and seek collaborations and partnerships with the City of Minneapolis, other governmental agencies, and housing advocates where appropriate.
• MPHA intends that residents participate and contribute to the planning and design discussions. If MPHA has a redevelopment opportunity that includes strategies not previously anticipated by the agency, MPHA commits to bring these approaches to the residents as soon as possible for an open review and discussion of the options.”

3. MPHA’s continues to fail in its promise to honor residents’ rights to participate by continued marginalization, retaliation, and silencing tactics under Executive Director Greg Russ’s and current Commissioners’ leadership.

• MPHA says they will encourage active, meaningful resident and community participation throughout any and all of their planning and implementation process.

• However, MPHA fails to keep this promise to citizens of Minneapolis and residents of public housing citywide.

• For example, in their latest privatization plan called, “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan 2018 to 2020” that MPHA submitted to Housing & Policy Committee in order to dismantle public housing through Section 8 project based where 99.9 % of the land and buildings will be turned over to private developer which will displace tens and thousands of public housing residents, MPHA failed to send out notifications about this plan to residents of public housing.

• Residents were not notified by any means about MPHA’s “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”.
• Our allies found MPHA’s “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan” document online.

Therefore, regarding Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”, MPHA failed to:

• Provide access to the document by mailing or delivering the documents to all and any public housing residents.
• Hold public meetings to explain about their latest plan
• To provide 30 day notice for public comments.
• Collect and refuse to hear public comments during their Board meeting on May 23, 2018 where they approved this policy without public input.
• MPHA violated the public comments by failing to provide transparent and fair community engagement process.
• Somali residents of Elliot Twins filed written complaints to MPHA of harassment, racism, and xenophobia by individuals handpicked by MPHA to silence residents so they do not speak out on MPHA’s plans to displace residents thorough any of MPHA’s privatization mechanism including their latest “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”. Greg Russ continues to normalize this behavior by ignoring the current abuses, and protecting the individuals who are violating residents’ rights.
• Greg Russ and Communication Director, Jeff Horwich, continue to demonize and target through social media resident leaders of our campaign. In addition, Jeff Horwich trolls allies who signed our petition to Mayor Jacob Frey and City of Minneapolis that is currently at over 18, 200 signatures. https://campaigns.organizefor.org/petitions/minneapolis-public-housing-authority-don-t-auction-off-our-homes-to-the-highest-bidder
• The many public housing residents do not speak English. Therefore, MPHA continues to violate its obligation for Limited English Proficiency, which is a part of federal and state laws by failing to notify residents about this meeting including the notices, and interpreting.
• MPHA continues to misrepresent their financials to the City, and the public by claiming that they do not have funds to continue operating public housing as a public good. We have yet to receive financial audits, and line items of the backlog they claim for the upcoming years. However, MPHA’s own records show that they are financially very sound and healthy. MPHA’s latest plan is turning the buildings over to Section 8 project based where 99.9 % of the buildings will be owned by private developers. Even though residents have not approved these plans, and MPHA failed to notify residents, MPHA is now lobbying the city, and it says this will bring in more funds. The evidence show that these funds will go to private developers, MPHA will no longer be a public agency, and once the developers take over the buildings, low- income residents will be displaced by the thousands with no protection as the buildings turn to high-end luxury apartments. This will be the end of public housing. In addition, MPHA has a surplus of $23 million dollars, HUD increased their capital funding in 2018 by 42%, and HUD plans to increase their capital funding in 2019. Why are they not using these funds now to keep public housing public? With the current lack of oversight, how can the public trust MPHA?

4. MPHA has repeatedly said that it expects the residents and community to hold them accountable to honor the rights of residents, but it is clear that MPHA continues to violate the rights of residents throughout.

• MPHA has made further, basic public promises that we expect the community to hold us to.”

Source: MPHA’s MTW Annual Plan for 2018, APPENDIX C: Responses to Public Comments on the 2018 Draft MTW Annual Plan, page 3.

• “Extensive resident engagement is essential to any project, and we expect residents and the community to hold us to these.”

Source: MPHA Commentary, Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 5, 2017.

Now the City Council is part of “the community” that MPHA says should hold MPHA accountable for its resident participation promises, and resident treatment, we expect City Council to begin acknowledging its authority and responsibility over MPHA.

Conclusion and Recommendations

We mention these issues to document the materials provided to the Committee so far should be viewed as a good way to open public comment on the tools currently and potentially available to the City Council for exercising authority and responsibility over the actions of the MPHA, but not be taken as the final, comprehensive word on the subject.

In addition to opening, a 60-day public comment period on the documents received by the Committee to-date, there are several prudent steps that the Committee may wish to take at this time to expeditiously follow up on, based on information brought to light so far. For example, decide:

1. How it will respond to the fact that MPHA has not been complying with Chapter 420’s requirement that it file quarterly reports?
2. How (going forward) it will ensure that MPHA files quarterly reports and respond to financial audits/ oversight that needs to completed?
3. What questions about MPHA activity it (or the City Council) will ask MPHA to include in its future reports?
4. How it will ensure that all MPHA commissioners are selected pursuant to the Open Appointment process and confirmed (or rejected) by the Mayor or City Council?
5. How it will ensure that the MPHA’s list of resident participation obligations be amended to include 1) the City Council’s September 2015 Resolution and 2) the resident and participation promises made by the MPHA to be monitored and enforced?
6. How it will monitor MPHA Commissioners’ obligation to timely file annual Statements of Economic Interest as required by Minneapolis ordinance?
7. How it will respond about MPHA’s discriminatory treatments towards residents to marginalize, silence and target residents participation and organizing to save their homes and community?

If the Committee believes that MPHA has not been complying with 1) the quarterly reports requirement of Chapter 420; 2) the requirements of Chapter 15.180 regarding the filing of Statements of Economic Interest with the City Clerk; or 3) the Open Appointments Process for each of MPHA’s current nine Commissioners, the Committee could ask the MPHA (or the City Clerk) to provide copies of the documents that confirm compliance with these items or request that Committee staff make relevant inquiry, and report back for the Committee’s next meeting.

(PDF of Comments Found Here: DG&PHC Comments to Housing Policy & Dev. Committee)

Dear Allies,

We are an apolitical campaign and do not endorse candidates. That said, please see this letter of support from Haaris Pasha, who is the first candidate in this election to support our campaign.

A letter from Haaris Pasha for MN House 60B

Dear Allies:

We have found out that the Star Tribune will soon publish a PR piece about MPHA’s executive director Greg Russ and his privatization plans to dismantle and displace Minneapolis Public Housing through RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) a tool that allows public housing agencies to privatize public housing, once they have approval from HUD and the City.  For the record, MPHA has not shared their RAD applications with the public, or notified residents of public housing and the greater public about specific RAD applications for each property. These applications require community meetings, public comments and hearings at MPHA and at  City Council. The only thing MPHA has shared with the City Council (and not with residents) is the “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan.” This is a report, not an actual RAD application to dismantle each building, property by property.  https://www.dgphc.org/2018/07/11/mpha-strategic-vision-analysis/

Greg Russ and MPHA are concerned about the increasing national attention the Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition campaign is receiving. This includes a letter of solidarity from the National Public Housing Museum, which is based in Chicago. This letter is especially concerning for Greg Russ because their letter specifically calls out the Chicago Housing Authority’s failed “Plan for Transformation” as an example of the kind of dangerous privatization plan Greg Russ is now promoting here to dismantle public housing.

Greg Russ has reason to fear the Chicago connection, because as the Director of Policy at Chicago Housing Authority, (CHA) Greg Russ negotiated the Plan for Transformation. This plan dismantled, demolished, and privatized public housing, displacing tens of thousands of people in the process. Greg Russ bears personal responsibility for this tragedy. Will Minneapolis let him replicate it here?

This new Star Tribune piece is a part of MPHA’s extensive PR campaign, led by the Star Tribune’s new reporter Mukhtar Ibrahim. Mr. Ibrahim contacted DG&PHC yesterday, Thursday, July 19th, after he had an extensive face to face interview with Greg Russ.  According to Mr. Ibrahim, Greg Russ told him about MPHA’s plans to use RAD to privatize public housing, while also saying:  “What DG&PHC are saying about Greg Russ and MPHA  privatizing and displacing thousands of residents is a lie.”

As a result, DG&PHC requested to be interviewed by Mr. Ibrahim to present real evidence and MPHA’s own reports that show MPHA’s privatization and displacement plans. In other words, to be given the same opportunity and time Greg Russ received.

Mr. Ibrahim said he did not want to meet us. “He said, I have no time to meet with residents,  and this story is not about residents, it is about Russ.”

Later that day, two resident leaders called Mr. Ibrahim and requested again that he meet with residents anytime Friday, July 20th, or later to make sure the voice of residents who are at the front lines to save their homes from the destruction of Greg Russ are interviewed. Mr. Ibrahim again said:  “No, the story is about Russ.”

Even though Russ spoke about DG&PHC on record to Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Ibrahim did not want to meet us to present Greg Russ’s own privation plans. A resident leader said: ”Mukhtar you can do a fair, objective and comprehensive story on Greg Russ and his history and plans, or you can write a biased story.” In addition, when we asked Mr. Ibrahim if has he seen the actual RAD applications, Mr. Ibrahim said: “No”.

As the phone conversation progressed to trying to convince Mr. Ibrahim to do a fair story, we realized that Mr.Ibrahim  had not done the necessary research, and was only relying on Russ’s spin. Mr. Ibrahim did not know the history of 2015,  and how residents of Glendale stopped the RAD vote at City Council, and that HUD did not take the application. It is premature to do a RAD story when a RAD application has not been prepared, or presented to residents, or the City of Minneapolis. We say no to RAD applications.

The decision by the Star Tribune and their reporter Mukhtar Ibrahim to publish this piece without speaking to residents of public housing who have been fighting Greg Russ since his appointment is part of a pattern of behavior at the Star Tribune that gives priority to the voices of white elites, while ignoring and marginalizing POC, East Africans, and poor communities of Minneapolis. The Star Tribune does not care about the facts or the truth. They want to help MPHA push their plans by trying to save Greg Russ’s image.

We say, let Greg Russ’s record speak for itself. Let the tens of thousands of people who lost their homes in Chicago speak for themselves. Let the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to private hands that has taken place under his watch in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cambridge speak for itself. For years, Greg Russ has escaped scrutiny by moving from city to city. He comes in, dismantles, and moves on to the next city to destroy public housing. But now, his record has caught up with him. Instead of owning this record, Greg Russ is now smearing public housing residents in an attempt to distract the public.

DG&PHC has nothing to hide. We report only facts, based on MPHA’s own documents. As this story gains national coverage, the local media such as Star Tribune  who push MPHA’s plans will be exposed for their complicity and racism in this scandal. The fact that the Star Tribune chose a Somali reporter, Mukhtar Ibrahim, does not change their culture of bias and systemic oppression. For the record, Star Tribune published lies about our campaign the same time last year in 2017.  After our statement here, we will see how the Star Tribune will to try to spin our truth and their hostile treatment towards our campaign, struggle and movement, as they are planning on publishing Russ’s spin piece by Sunday, July 22, 2018.

 #SaynotoRAD  #ShameonStarTribune

(A PDF version of this statement is available here.)

Dear Allies:  We need your support to submit public comments by this Sunday July 22 to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to keep public housing public, and to build more public housing in Minneapolis.

Introduction:

Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition is a grassroots campaign of residents organizing to prevent the privatization of Glendale & the rest of public housing in Minneapolis. The objective of the campaign is to ensure zero displacement, eliminate systematic gentrification, protect, and build more public housing, and to minimize the racial and economic inequities currently facing Minneapolis and Hennepin County.

Sunday, July 22, less than one week from today, is the final day the City will receive public comments on the draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide and provide a framework for city policy for the next twenty years. If approved in its current form, the Comprehensive Plan will do nothing to address the widening racial and income disparities, stop the privatization of public housing, or stop the displacement of low-income communities of color out and the whitening of Minneapolis. There is no mention of public housing whatsoever in the 2040 Plan. This is a deliberate housing crisis created by MPHA and Mayor Jacob Frey along with silent elected officials that support this plan.

Directions To Submitting Comments:

Unfortunately, the City of Minneapolis will only accept written comments submitted through their website. This marginalizes many communities that have no access to computers or do not speak English.  This describes the majority of public housing residents, as well as the low-income communities of color, immigrants, and refugees who live in Minneapolis. Therefore, we are asking our allies who do have access to the internet to submit the seven demands listed below to help us meet our goals.  Please follow the link below so you can submit these demands as well as your own comments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s website, and share this with your friends and community: https://minneapolis2040.com/comment-form/

Seven Comments to Keep Public Housing Public and to Build More Public Housing in Minneapolis.

1. Protect all public housing and build more: Create a permanent-public policy, county, city- wide ordinances, and state bills to protect all public housing units as public housing in Minneapolis and build more public housing.  This includes 42 high rises, over 740 homes, Glendale Townhomes, more public housing homes, and over 6,040 current public housing units. Prohibit the sale or lease of land to private developers/investors, or MPHA becoming a private investor, charging market prices for profit through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, or Land Use Restrictive Agreements, etc.  Adhere to the permanent protection land trust Declaration of Trust (DOT).
2. Stop the sale and lease of public housing buildings: Public housing properties are currently the first target of conversion by MPHA to private developers, and investors. This includes Glendale Townhomes, Cedar Riverside Public Housing, Elliot Twins, Horn Towers, Friendly Manor, Spring Manor,  and Rainbow Terrace to name a few. This also includes public housing buildings in Wards that predominantly house East African Somali and Oromo elders that are the first target, and all public housing properties.
   • Stop all methods of privatization by MPHA including Section 8 private ownership conversion that will allow 99.99% of the buildings be turned over to private developers. This would displace residents, who will not be relocated after any/all redevelopment to the properties.
   • Stop privatization schemes such as (so-called) “public-private partnerships” for public housing–including HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, Section 18 Demolition/Disposition, “Voluntary Conversion,” removal of public ownership requirements established by Declarations of Trust on public housing properties, etc. These schemes, which MPHA is openly planning for, would permanently transfer ownership to private banks and investors, opening new pathways to rent hikes and displacement.
3. Eliminate future displacement: Build more public housing that charges 30% of income for rent for low-income tenants, and stop the privatization of public housing to minimize displacement, homelessness, the housing crisis, social & economic crisis.  And, approve Glendale Townhomes’ application for local historical designation at Minneapolis City Council.
4. Fund public housing as a public good: Access public funds from the State, County, and City to keep public housing public. Funding for public housing (through the City Levy, County Funds, Affordable Housing fund, etc.) must be added to the City of Minneapolis, County, and State legislative agenda. Public funding to private developers that build temporarily limited-income-based housing for low-income families must be eliminated.  Instead, that funding should be used to build more public housing, as well as funding & sustaining public housing, which provides a long-term safety net, and provides social and economic stability to low-income residents of Minneapolis.
5. Hold MPHA accountable to fix & repair Glendale Townhomes and Other Properties: MPHA must eliminate its “zero budget” policy for Glendale repairs and maintenance and other properties. This is the only option to preserve Glendale and other properties as they exist now (truly public housing), and to not convert them to any private development, which would permanently displace current residents.
6. Income-based definitions of housing affordability, instead of AMI (“area median income”) based definitions: The Comprehensive Plan should establish that housing officially deemed “affordable” must guarantee rents are set according families’ actual ability to pay, at 30% of their income instead of using AMI, which is inflated statistical averages that include rich, mostly White suburbs, and currently allows developers to continually set higher and higher rents while still being considered “affordable housing.”
   Please read our full analysis on AMI Here: https://www.dgphc.org/2018/05/10/ami-housing-deeply-unaffordable-for-low-income-families-part-2/
7. City oversight of Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA): The Comprehensive Plan must re-assert the City’s statutory ability to provide public oversight and control of MPHA, and prevent MPHA from acting as a rogue agency bent on the privatization of public housing and spinning itself off into an unaccountable nonprofit that acts in the interests of private investment funding instead of the public good.

Please submit comments 1 to 7 to this link   https://minneapolis2040.com/comment-form/