urbanMSP

This week, MPHA has submitted eight separate applications that comprise the first half of its MPHA Family Housing Expansion program. In total, the project will construct eighty four new units across sixteen modular small multi-family buildings. About one third will be two bedroom units and two thirds will be three bedroom units. Here are more details from a presentation given about the two projects in Seward.

The projects that were submitted this week are:

1030 Lowry Ave NE (currently duplex) — 6 units
1600 Penn Ave N (vacant) — 6 units
2015 23rd Ave S (currently single family) — 6 units
2021 24th Ave S (currently single family) — 4 units
2425 16th Ave S (currently duplex) — 6 units
2220 38th St E (currently single family) — 6 units
5139 Penn Ave S (currently duplex) — 6 units
5633 34th Ave S (currently single family) — 6 units

All together, these projects will result in a net increase of 36 housing units.

I think this program is really superlative and I hope to see it continued in subsequent phases. With this model, MPHA can meaningfully expand its own housing stock, serve as a demonstration for private developers looking into small multi-family, and provide a critical counter-cyclical customer for modular construction companies.

I tried looking on LIMS where was this submitted at?

I spotted it on the city's land use applications portal.

These slightly larger MPHA developments are a great idea resulting in more affordable units spread throughout the City. However, I was told by someone at St. Stephens that Congress in the 1980s or 1990s passed a law limiting the number of public housing units to whatever the highest number of units was in each municipality. So for example, if Minneapolis largest number of public housing units was 5,000 in 1984, that is the maximum number of units the City can ever provide unless that law gets repealed. In 2018, when I had this conversation, Minneapolis was about 75 units short of the maximum. I'm not 100% sure this is all correct, but the St. Stephens source is very knowledgeable.

That's the Faircloth Amendment. Some congressional representatives (like Rep. Ocasio Cortez) are trying to repeal it.

Here's a decent summary on that issue: https://ggwash.org/view/80372/what-is-t ... ent-anyway

All of these passed the Planning Commission unanimously last night.

There was sort of an odd subplot to this that developed over the weekend, when a group of self-described public housing activists very vocally opposed these projects. Unfortunately they made a number of claims that proved to be misinformation and led to a lot of confusion. At the CPC last night, the representative from MPHA was at pains to note that (1) these homes will be developed, owned, and operated by the MPHA, (2) that the new units will be available to families with income below 30% AMI, (3) that all future tenants will pay no more than 30% of their income in rent, (4) that all existing tenants will have a right to return to the new buildings, and (5) that all existing tenants were informed this summer and have been meeting monthly on the design and other issues.

The opponents want to draw a really fine distinction between "public housing" and this project, which is section 8 contract housing owned and operated by a non-profit run by MPHA. This strange structure allows MPHA to raise the funds from private sources to do this work (similar work has been underway refurbishing the Elliot Twins). The opponents have a point that this is a dumb way to run a railroad, but they're off the mark by targeting MPHA, which is just trying to do as much good as possible within the insane confines set by the federal government. Congress and HUD created this mess, and it doesn't seem defensible to me for MPHA to wait around and not build or maintain anything until Washington DC magically funds public housing again at 1960's levels.

Happily, the public comment for the projects was overwhelmingly positive, with almost every caller expressing support for new public housing. CM-Elects Worlobah, Chavez, and Chughtai all signed up to speak, but then they all no-showed the public comment period, which was curious. Anyway, all's well that ends well. I'm sure the process will be repeated when the next set of eight projects goes before the CPC, but after approving the first set last night, the second set will surely be approved with no issue.

Seems like these scattered-site projects are going to be PITA to manage, but I guess that's another problem for another day.

Probably less of a PITA than the existing SFH scattered sites, though.

Does anyone know much about the Faircloth Amendment that says public housing authorities can't have more units than their max as of 1999? I know the MPHA has to create nonprofits for all these renovations/builds to get financing, but wonder if it's also to comply with Faircloth? Or maybe because it's Section 8 that helps them get around it? I wouldn't be surprised if MPHA is down net units since 1999 anyway.

My recollection is that MPHA is several hundred units below its Faircloth limit (6393).

There was sort of an odd subplot to this that developed over the weekend, when a group of self-described public housing activists very vocally opposed these projects. Unfortunately they made a number of claims that proved to be misinformation and led to a lot of confusion. At the CPC last night, the representative from MPHA was at pains to note that (1) these homes will be developed, owned, and operated by the MPHA, (2) that the new units will be available to families with income below 30% AMI, (3) that all future tenants will pay no more than 30% of their income in rent, (4) that all existing tenants will have a right to return to the new buildings, and (5) that all existing tenants were informed this summer and have been meeting monthly on the design and other issues.

Was this the Glendale group?

Sounds like em'

Some updates on this:

These sixteen buildings are nearing completion.

I've attached some photos in a tweet here.

Here is a hype video for the project.