Tanya Dempsey, a consultant from CSG Consultants, was present at MPHA’s Board meeting today, in support of Greg Russ and MPHA’s RAD conversion plans for Elliot Twins.

Tanya Dempsey, who will be the lead on many of the tasks MPHA has assigned CSG, previously worked for New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) while they underwent an extensive “portfolio modernization” effort not unlike the current “portfolio assessment” MPHA has undertaken. NYCHA hired CSG to act as a financial advisor during this process. Apparently impressed with CSG’s work, Dempsey decided it would be appropriate to apply for a job at CSG while continuing to work with them on behalf of NYCHA. According to NY Daily News, “for months, she continued signing off on checks for CSG and working with the firm on NYCHA projects while emailing back and forth about snagging a job at CSG.” She succeeded in changing employers, but was later forced to pay a $9,500 fine to settle charges filed by New York City’s Conflict of Interest Board.

See this article about her story https://tinyurl.com/MPHA-CSG-s-Corruption

To: MPHA, HUD, Mayor Jacob Frey and Minneapolis City Council

I am writing in regards to MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan that MPHA is planning to send to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). This plan is full of flaws, hiding key information, misleading statements, and legal shortcomings. This plan would approve the privatization of all public housing, leading to the dismantling of over 730 homes, 42 high rises, the Glendale Townhomes, and more, as well as the displacement of over 11,000 public housing residents, and 17,000 on a waiting list. These are majority Black, Black Muslims, disabled seniors on fixed income, refugees, immigrants, and families with children. MPHA, led by their Executive Director Greg Russ, wants to start plans to privatize Elliot Twins in Ward 6 without resident and city council approval or notification. This is a violation of both HUD and City policies and ordinances.

As an elected and public official, I am requesting that you reject MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan as it is written now. Ask MPHA to go back and rewrite this plan. MPHA must restart the clock and write a 2019 MTW Annual Plan that is honest, transparent, and that will not mislead public housing residents, their families, city wide residents of Minneapolis, elected officials and HUD. See this link for an in-depth analysis of it’s misleading approach . MPHA’s hidden and dishonest plans are misleading residents and the public in order to sell public housing & its communities to private developers that will displace public housing residents. MPHA 2019 MTW Annual Plan is failing the City of Minneapolis, and its public housing residents for the following reasons, plans, issues and topics they describe in their plan:

1. MPHA’s Strategic Vision & Capital Plan 2018–2020 & 2020-2030: lays out a misleading plan MPHA’s plan to end public housing in Minneapolis as it has existed since 1938. MPHA refused to collect comments during the board meetings, failed to notify residents, and failed to provide a 30 day comment period. None of the residents in these buildings and townhomes were informed about this plan. This plan has been prepared in secrecy violating MPHA’s own public engagement policy, Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law, and City of Minneapolis’ resolution on Glendale, and its “Core Principles of Community Engagement”.

2. Section 18 Disposition of Scattered Sites into Private Fourplexes
   MPHA plans on privatizing over 730 single family homes through Section 18 Disposition & Demolition. MPHA attempts to hide this from the reader by titling this section “Preserving and Stabilizing MPHA Scattered Sites through ‘Section 18,’” conveniently leaving out that Section 18 authorizes the demolition and disposition of public housing as a result displacing families providing them Section 8 Vouchers that private landlords are no longer taking. MPHA plans to follow Mayor Frey’s lead and turn these public housing homes into privately owned fourplexes. The fourplex plans outlined in City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. MPHA continues to use misleading and dishonest language in an attempt to deceive public officials, residents, and the broader public about their activities.

3. RAD- Elliot Twins: Leads to displacement of seniors that are not informed. Restart the discussion before application is filed. MPHA misled Elliot Twins residents about RAD and residents rejected RAD. (RAD) Rental Assistance Demonstration Program is a voluntary program that will displace residents, increase rents, and residents can’t come back to their buildings because the buildings will convert to private development with luxury apartments. MPHA began the planning process of RAD on April of 2017, and for 15 months until August of 2018, MPHA hid this plan, misled and excluded Elliot residents from the planning and decision making process regarding the RAD application to HUD. Residents saw that MPHA was not honest during RAD meetings on August 8th and 9th, 2018. During the meetings, MPHA sent mixed messages about residents using Section 8 to move out, or residents moving to other public housing buildings. MPHA knows this will lead to displacement because private landlords don’t take section 8, and the waitlist for public housing is 7 years long. Also, MPHA hid from residents U.S. General Accounting Office report report that stated RAD leads displacement around the nation. Residents were not informed about RAD. MPHA kept it a secret and misled them, and Elliot Twins protested and rejected RAD when they found out MPHA was misleading them.

4. MPHA failed to inform, provide access and engage residents

MPHA said in a letter public housing residents must go online to read or comment on the 2019 MTW Plan. Majority of public housing residents don’t have access to computers and may not have emails, and half of the population don’t speak English and a large number are disabled. How are they supposed to access this report. MPHA violated its obligation for Limited English Proficiency and the rights of disabled residents. MPHA failed to provide other ways for residents to access or understand this report, and the danger these plans present to the safety, well-being and housing stability of public housing residents. Resident Advisory Board or Tenant Advisory Board and Minneapolis High Rise Council ( MHRC) does not represent public housing residents in Elliot Twins, Glendale, etc., because residents don’t know what they do or who they are. Elliot Twins complained about MHRC that MPHA ignored. MHRC failed to advocate for residents, and they can’t approve any plans without a public transparency and without the consent of all of the public housing residents.

5. Misleading and questionable budget: MPHA uses false narrative about lack of funding to push to privatize public housing. MPHA has money and is able to access public funds as they have in the past, but MPHA does not want to keep public housing public which is why are not lobbying or accessing public funds that are available them. See here for full analysis of MPHA 2019 MTW Plan
6. “Approved” MTW Activities includes many activities that are not approved. This is totally dishonest and misleading. Public trust about MPHA’s leadership continues to deteriorate

MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan must undergo a rewrite to reflect honest and good public housing policy to keep public housing public, and thorough, transparent community engagement process before it is approved. I urge MPHA’s Board of Commissioners, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD), Mayor Jacob Frey, Minneapolis City Council, Housing Policy & Development Committee to fulfill their role as protectors of public housing and reject MPHA’s 2019 Moving to Work Plan for its lack of transparency and misleading approaches.

https://tinyurl.com/MPHA-2019-MTW-Analysis

Introduction

1. Although MPHA has still not had their 2018 MTW Annual Plan approved by HUD, they continue to push the same privatization agenda in their 2019 Annual Plan. This agenda is based on a misrepresentation of the facts, and was crafted without the input or support of residents. The following is a brief summary of the flaws, misleading statements, and legal shortcomings of MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan . This includes the following plans and issues they describe in their annual plan.

2. Strategic Vision & Capital Plan 2018–2020 & 2020-2030 HORIZON

In MPHA’s Strategic Vision & Capital Plan , which was presented to the MPHA Board of Commissioners on May 16, in spite of a lack of resident and community engagement as required by city, state, and federal rules, lays out MPHA’s plan to end public housing in Minneapolis as it has existed since 1937, using Section 8 to dismantle public housing and displace residents. In this report, MPHA named five properties to privatize and displace residents, Elliot Twins in Ward 6, Glendale Townhomes in Ward 2, Rainbow Terrace in Ward 5, Spring Manor, and Friendly Manor in Ward 3. In all of these properties, MPHA wants to use RAD, Low-Income Housing Credit, and other privatizing schemes. This plan is a far-reaching, trajectory-setting document, charting the course for conversion of ALL of MPHA’s over 6,245 public housing units from public housing funding to Section 8 funding and from public ownership to 99.9% private ownership and 0.01 % ownership by a non-profit corporation created by MPHA with heavily invested in by private interests and not subject to government requirements such as compliance with Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law and Government Data Practices Act.

MPHA already has densification and gentrification plans. This is bigger than MPHA; this is about the future of democracy in Minneapolis. Chicago is still haunted by the destruction of public housing there (including Cabrini Green public housing) which, Greg Russ, current executive director of MPHA also had a hand in. If the HUD, and our elected officials approve MPHA’s privatization plans, which will dismantle public housing as it existed since 1937, there will be no turning back.

MPHA states that: “The Strategic Vision & Capital Plan followed more than a year of engaging the community on the challenges we face and the protections that public housing residents deserve.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Public housing residents were not notified of this plan. Therefore, MPHA:

• Failed to mail letters in the past year to tenants in the five properties to inform them of their plans.
• Failed provide access to the document to tenants by mailing or delivering the documents to public housing resident.
• Failed to hold public or resident meetings to explain about their latest plan in Elliot Twins, Glendale, etc.
• Failed to provide 30-day notice for public comments.
• Refused to collect and hear public comments during their Board meeting on May 23, 2018 where they approved this policy without public input.
• Failed to provide transparent and fair community engagement therefore violating the public comments process.

MPHA’s Strategic Vision & Capital Plan has been prepared in secrecy by the MPHA staff and Board without the resident and community participation promised by the MPHA’s own public engagement policy, Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law, the “ City’s Core Principles of Community Engagement”, and City’s own resolution about Glendale which states: “any redevelopment or improvement plan for that area will follow a separate, open, transparent public process that will include participation of the neighborhood association and Glendale residents.”

MPHA gross misrepresentation of the actual level of resident involvement in the creation of the Strategic Vision and Capital Plan is a pattern that repeats itself throughout MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan. In fact, Greg Russ’s tenure at MPHA has been characterized by an insidious and systemic marginalization of residents crudely papered over with public statements about extensive public involvement. Importantly, no evidence for this resident involvement is ever offered, because it does not exist. MPHA continues to rely on a small number of handpicked residents – an anonymous “Tenant Advisory Board,” also knowns at Resident Advisory Board to speak for all residents in spite of the fact many MPHA residents have publicly stated that this Tenant ( Resident) Advisory Board does not speak for them and they don’t know who they are. It is clear that MPHA uses the “Tenant ( Resident) Advisory Board” to take advantage of vulnerable residents. In addition, the Tenant Advisory Board does not inform residents about the decisions MPHA’s Board makes. Residents’ feedback are excluded. MPHA’s Board of Commissioners who are very wealthy and majority white pro- developers don’t listen to residents or community feedback. They have authoritarian rule over MPHA because their developers’ network will profit from the sale, dismantling, displacement and the destruction of public housing. MPHA sent Strategic and Vision report to the City of Minneapolis Housing & Policy Committee on June 6, 2018 for review. MPHA contradicts itself. One minute they say it is a plan, the next minute they say it is not a plan it is a vision. They are misleading the public as well as the elected officials. The City of Minneapolis Housing & Policy Committee voted to table this report to further study the legal oversight City of Minneapolis over MPHA. At this meeting, residents from Glendale and Elliot Twins gave public comments about the lack of resident engagement, MPHA secrecy and misleading of tenants. On July 25, 2019, The City Attorney’s office presented their findings to the Housing & Policy Committee about the city’s legal oversight over MPHA. The findings corrected the notion that MPHA is a completely, and irrevocably an independent political body from MPHA. The report found that MPHA is not an independent political body from City of Minneapolis. It is clear from this report that MPHA remains subject to City Council ordinances and monitoring as underlined by the City Attorney’s report. For full analysis, see the following links, https://www.dgphc.org/2018/07/11/mpha-strategic-vision-analysis/

https://tinyurl.com/Comments-6-6-18-Housing-Comm

https://tinyurl.com/Comments-7-25-18-Housing-Comm

3. Section 18 Disposition of Scattered Sites into Private Fourplexes
   This section of the analysis explains in detail MPHA’s plans on privatizing over 730 single family homes that are in excellent condition through Section 18 Disposition & Demolition. MPHA attempts to hide this from the reader by titling this section “Preserving and Stabilizing MPHA Scattered Sites through ‘Section 18,’” conveniently leaving out that Section 18 authorizes the demolition and disposition of public housing. Characterizing the demolition and disposition of public housing as preservation is indicative of MPHA’s persistent and pervasive use of misleading and dishonest language in an attempt to deceive public officials, residents, and the broader public about their activities.

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. This is not the case with MPHA’s scattered sites. These homes are in great shape. Public housing families who rent these homes will be told to move out in 3 months or so, and MPHA will give them Section 8 vouchers to look for housing elsewhere. Therefore, MPHA is displacing thousands of families with children from their homes and community putting them at risk of homelessness, and due to gentrification, private landlords no longer rent to Section 8 families. MPHA is implementing this program for political reasons. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has proposed a plan to allow for the construction of fourplexes throughout the city which is also endorsed by his 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and MPHA has included this component of their plan in order to win his political support, and transform the scattered sites into the fourplexes. Importantly, Section 18 does not allow MPHA to dispose of their 730 scattered site homes. Section 18 specifically limits the number of properties that can be demolished in a 5 year period to “the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5% of the total public housing dwelling units owned by the PHA.” MPHA has declared their intention to pursue activities they are not authorized to do. Again, MPHA is misleading the public and elected officials. Here is a fact sheet about their plans.

4. RAD- Elliot Twins: Leads to displacement of seniors that are not informed. Restart the discussion before application is filed.

(R.A.D) Rental Assistance Demonstration Program is a voluntary program from HUD. MPHA does not need to apply. But it is clear MPHA wants to apply to transfer and sell Elliot Twins to private investors where the investors will own 99.9 % of the buildings. Elliot Twins are attractive buildings to investors because of its location in downtown Minneapolis walking distance from the U.S. Bank Stadium. MPHA’s plans to pursue RAD at Elliot Twins is one of the most misleading parts of their 2019 MTW Annual Plan. MPHA hid the plans from Elliot Twins seniors to sell the buildings and displace residents. MPHA did not notify the residents or the public. The residents of Elliot Twins are majority seniors, elders, East Africans, and African Americans who have major disabilities, and receive a fixed income of $750 a month from social security.

MPHA needs to stop the application process for RAD because Gregory Russ began applying for RAD in 2017 without Elliot Twins notification or approval. On April 2017, MPHA submitted a LOI ( letter of interest) for the Elliot Twins to HUD, and have spent hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars on consultants specifically tasked with developing privatization plans for the Elliot Twins. MPHA has done this without notifying or collecting feedback from the residents of Elliot Twins, or the broader public. MPHA purposely hid this decision from Elliot Twins, the public and elected officials. Here is a Letter from Elliot Twins East African Seniors wrote to MPHA complaining about how they are excluded from any decision making. At this time, residents had no idea that Greg Russ had already sent LOI to apply to RAD. In this letter, residents mention when Greg Russ visited Elliot Twins during June of 2017, he told them they will receive section 8. See a short clip of a video taken during this meeting where Greg Russ does not mention that he applied to RAD, and says residents will receive Section 8 vouchers or residents will move to other public housing units. Section 8 Vouchers…Greg Russ Said it! Greg Russ knows Section 8 does not work, and the waitlist for other public housing units is 7 years long. Residents rejected Section 8, and said they are not going to move. Significantly, MPHA did not include this activity of applying RAD in their 2018 MTW Annual Plan, which also has not yet been approved by HUD. MPHA has submitted this application without specific and explicit authorization to do so. Even though, there has been no board approval of an application to apply for RAD, and residents have not been notified whether or not MPHA Board of Commissioners approved RAD, Greg Russ made the decision to mislead residents and make them think that the Board had approved RAD.

For 15 months from April, 2017 to July, 2018, MPHA excluded Elliot residents from the planning and decision making process to apply for RAD. On July 28, 2018, Star Tribune published a profile about Greg Russ where he announced his plans to use RAD on Elliot Twins, and plans to privatize the rest of the Minneapolis public housing using RAD and low-income housing tax credits to attract private investors. Greg Russ knows majority of the residents do not read the Star Tribune and cannot read or speak English, or are disabled, and have no idea about these plans because MPHA failed to engage and inform them 15 months ago when he started this process. MPHA continues to violate language proficiency laws for residents who speak Hmong, Oromo, Spanish, Amharic, and other languages, as well as the rights of residents who are disabled. To minimize damage, MPHA invited Elliot Twins residents to attend RAD information meetings on August 8th and 9th 2018 which failed because residents walked out due to MPHA’s misleading presentation, and the hiding of RAD’s negative impacts on communities all over the nation :

• Residents of Elliot Twins, Glendale Townhomes and allies protested these meetings because these meetings were not legitimate. MPHA excluded Elliot Twins residents for 15 months from the planning and the decision making processes involved in applying for RAD.
• Residents of Elliot Twins stated that resident council and tenants ( resident) advisory board or Minneapolis High Rise Council ( MHRC) does not represent them and never have. MPHA said they met with these groups at other buildings to get permission to apply for RAD. But MPHA failed to notify residents at Elliot Twins directly or get their permission since it is their building. Complaints about these groups were filed by Elliot Twins’s residents as early as March of 2018 which MPHA ignored. Greg Russ handpicked few people to push his plans in violation of residents rights.
• Residents of Elliot Twins found out for the first time at these meetings that MPHA is rushing to submit the RAD 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.
• MPHA sent mixed messages. On August 8th, MPHA said that residents will move out of Elliot Twins during RAD conversion, and some will receive Section 8 and others will be put on a waitlist at other public housing buildings.
• Residents stated that this will lead to displacement and homelessness because private developers do not rent to Section 8 anymore, and the waitlist is 7 years long which is over 17,000 people. MPHA had no response to this.
• On August 9th, with the same PowerPoint presentation, MPHA did not talk about Section 8 or the waitlist, and could not answer specific questions about displacement during the RAD process.
• MPHA hid from residents of Elliot Twins and the rest of the public housing residents (GAO) U.S. General Accounting Office report that studied the negative impacts of RAD. This report found that RAD is putting public housing residents at risk of chronic displacement around the nation, and HUD does not have the mechanism to make sure that residents are protected. According to the report, due to RAD, residents are facing displacement, high rents, and they are not coming back to their communities. Here is the GAO Report . In addition, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), stated her deep concerns about RAD, and how residents rights are not being protected. MPHA failed to notify residents of these findings from GAO report..
• Residents from Elliot Twins clearly saw that MPHA was misleading them and violating their civil rights. As a result, residents walked out of both meetings, and recognized these meetings as dishonest, misleading and illegitimate. See this Statement about MPHA’s illegitimate RAD meetings.

MPHA is hiding that residents will be displaced from their community, and they will face homelessness because MPHA plans on giving residents Section 8 vouchers (which don’t work), or residents will be added to the public housing waitlist, which is 7 years long. MPHA has not fulfilled their Fair Housing and Civil Rights requirements, as outlined by HUD. MPHA is also violating their own “Guiding Principles,” which promises “MPHA will encourage active and meaningful resident and community participation throughout the planning and implementation process.” MPHA further violated the requirement to notify residents “at the very beginning” of the of any planning process including any discussion or LOI regarding RAD.

MPHA is rushing RAD process in violation of HUD and City policies. Residents are being misled, and lied to. Residents have not consented to go ahead with the RAD application. MPHA is rushing this decision while it violates their own community engagement policies, as well as those required by HUD and the City. This is a violation of the rights of residents.

In order to build trust with residents and the rest of Minneapolis community, MPHA must stop lying to the community and residents of public housing. MPHA must be transparent as to why they want to use RAD 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. There is not sufficient information available to the residents and community members to allow a through and transparent discussion and evaluation about RAD. Residents and community need time to learn and discuss the impact of RAD on seniors and disabled residents if the Elliot Twins are privatized and residents are displaced. Residents and community members must regularly meet with Gregory Russ and the rest of his team in transparent, community-wide public meetings in compliance with MPHA, City, and HUD policies in order to learn about RAD and its impact on our elders before any application is accepted at HUD.

5. Lack of Resident and Community Engagement

MPHA sent a letter notifying public housing residents city- wide that the 2019 MTW Plan has come out. MPHA stated in the letter that if residents want to comment on this report, they have to comment online by sending an email or in writing. MPHA knows a majority of public housing residents do not have access to computers, and may not have emails accounts. Residents who are disabled cannot attend the meetings and cannot write comments, so how is MPHA ensuring that their voice is heard? There is absolutely no effort to communicate this plan to disabled residents.

MPHA knows that almost half or more of its public housing population do not speak or read English. It’s not good enough to tell these residents to go read their report, especially when they only provide a Somali translation for the introduction of their MTW (which makes up less than 1/5th of the entire MTW report). There is no translation into any other language, including Oromo, Spanish, or Hmong. Therefore, MPHA violated 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. Yet, MPHA policy states: “All MPHA activities related to the Moving To Work Plan, and approval process will be consistent with MPHA’s obligation under its limited English Proficiency LEP Plan.”

Minneapolis High Rise Council ( MHRC) failed in Glendale Townhomes because just like Elliot Twins, they became a tool to push MPHA lies about RAD in 2015 at Glendale, and when residents found that MHRC was not looking out for their best interest nor advocating for them to protect their rights, residents cut ties with MHRC. As a result, there needs to be a full audit and accountability assessment of MHRC’s mission, their budget, and their role misleading public housing residents. Majority of the residents in public housing do not know who the Resident Advisory Board ( RAB) also known as Tenant Advisory Board and (MHRC) who they are or what they do. They failed to advocate for residents, and they can’t approve any plans without a public transparency and without the consent of all of the public housing residents.

6. MPHA’s Misleading and Questionable Budget

In MPHA’s Strategic Vision & Capital Plan, MPHA says that they don’t have funds to continue to keep public housing public. As result, MPHA says they must privatize public housing. But MPHA properties are rated 98 out of 100 by HUD inspectors. MPHA has one of the best kept properties in the nation. MPHA has always balanced their budget. For many years, HUD did not raise capital funds, and they balanced their budget. But for the first time in years, MPHA received a 45% increase in capital funding in 2018. The current Senate spending bill increases this funding. MPHA considers their 45% increase in Capital Funding “no kind of victory.” MPHA does not want to talk about their capital funding because this contradicts their narrative that is intended to manipulate public opinion so they can sell off public housing.

MPHA spent millions in consulting fees for network of private developers that are connected to Greg Russ to create plans to privatize MPHA. In addition, MPHA is hiring a lot of people from the private sector. If MPHA has funding crisis, why don’t they have a hiring freeze? On page 71, MPHA claims capital needs of over $500 million over the next 20 years. In spite of the fact that this number is presented without evidence, and that MPHA has refused independent audits of their capital needs, this number is misleading for several reasons.

MPHA received about $15 million dollars in Capital Funding from HUD during 2018. If we extend this level of funding out for 20 years, MPHA will receive $300 million from the federal government alone. This is assuming there is no increased funding for public housing, which seems unlikely given the increased interest in affordable housing demonstrated by the increased funding in 2018 and the emergence of a new bipartisan Congressional Public Housing Caucus. If MPHA privatizes their housing right now, just as a federal movement to restore funding for public housing is growing, future generations will look at this decision as one of the worst mistakes in the city’s history.

Furthermore, Minneapolis is able to provide MPHA with a levy of up to $8 Million a year. MPHA told the city to cut this levy in 2010, which is interesting given that they now are claiming that they are so short on funds. If MPHA reinstated the full levy, MPHA would receive an additional $160 million over the next 20 years. This leaves a gap of about $80 million over 20 years, or $4 million per year. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is already able to issue $10 million per year to support public housing across the state. In fact, on page 78 of this document MPHA outlines how they received $2.2 million from Minnesota in 2018 for capital repairs, meaning that if we were to extend the same federal funding and state support, as well as a fully restored levy, MPHA would actually run an annual surplus of $200,000. The revenue and fees collected from public housing residents, which is a large portion of MPHA’s revenue, is not even included in this calculation. In addition, in 2016, Rep. Phyllis Kahn introduced a $5 million bonding bill by Kahn to support Glendale as public housing, and MPHA refused to lobby to access these funds.

Even if we uncritically accept MPHA’s numbers, it is quite easy to come up with funding models that keep public housing public. There is huge support for affordable housing in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, and it would be relatively simple to access the funding necessary to maintain public housing as a public good. Therefore, MPHA does not have money issues. MPHA does not want to preserve Elliot Twins, Glendale Townhomes, or other public housing properties as a public good through available public funds. MPHA wants to “Sell, Sell, Sell” as their consultant Peter Hendee Brown advised.

7. “Approved” MTW Activities includes many activities that are not approved
   Page 38, which is headlined “Approved MTW Activities,” contains many items that have not been approved. Out of the 30 total MTW Activities listed on this page, 7 have not been approved. MPHA’s 2018 Annual Plan has still not been approved by HUD, making them the only MTW agency in the country without an approved annual plan. MPHA attempts to hide this by placing their unapproved activities inside parentheses.Only one activity (“Release of the DOT to Preserve Public Housing”) does not have any year at all in the “Approved” column. This is because MPHA has been specifically instructed by HUD that they do not have the authority to pursue this activity. In spite of this, MPHA lists it here on a page titled “Approved MTW Activities.” This is beyond misleading – it is a lie.

   MPHA breaks this page into 4 categories: “Implemented Activities,” “Activities Not Yet Implemented,” “Activities On-Hold,” and “Closed-Out Activities.” We will briefly analyze each category below:

   1. “Implemented Activities”
      5 of the 16 (or about 1 in 3) activities in this section have not been approved by HUD. How has MPHA implemented these activities without HUD approval?
   2. “Activities Not Yet Implemented”
      This section is used to hide the fact that HUD has blocked MPHA’s plans to release DOTs by bundling that activity in with other activities that MPHA has not implemented due to other reasons. This activity should be put in a 5th category titled “Activities Not Approved by HUD.”
   3. “Activities On-Hold”
      MPHA describes Activities that they implemented in the past, but have now put on hold. “Alternate Income Verifications” and “Public Housing Earned-Income Disregard” were both placed on hold, with the potential to be implemented again in the future. MPHA does not give adequate explanations for why these activities were placed on hold, or why they might implement them again in the future. The 3rd activity, “Soft Subsidy Initiative,” is a failed public-private partnership with Alliance Housing. This highlights the dangers to residents who are put into experimental public-private programs.
   4. “Closed-Out Activities”
      This section contains many cancelled programs that benefitted residents, like home ownership programs, transitional housing, and public housing self-sufficiency programs.

8. Conclusion

Reject MPHA’s 2019 MTW Annual Plan. MPHA must go back and rewrite this plan. MPHA must write a 2019 MTW Annual plan that is honest, transparent, and that will not mislead over 11, 000 public housing residents, their families, citywide residents of Minneapolis, elected officials, and HUD. MPHA’s hidden and dishonest plans to sell public housing & its communities to private developers for profit, and that will displace public housing residents are thereby full rejected because this will create one of the biggest housing, gentrification, social and economic crisis this city has seen.

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)