Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to another question from Councilor Poling, City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that no public hearing was required for most resolutions, though certain resolutions such as budget adoption required them. Councilor Poling supported repealing the policy as he felt that its repeal would place the City in a better position to provide low-income housing for people. Councilor Taylor agreed the item did not belong on the Consent Calendar. She said the item should be tabled to allow further council discussion. She noted that two members of the HPB had dissented and had requested the opportunity to write a minority report. She did not see such a report in the packet and wondered where it was. Mr. Weinman replied that the two members had ultimately decided not to provide such a report. He noted that HPB member, Bob Doppelt, had been more concerned with the second part of the policy. He stated that this information was in the agenda packet. Councilor Ortiz said she had not read the Consolidated Plan. She had concerns about repealing the policy because she lived in a neighborhood that was not "suitable for low-income housing." She opined that placement of low-income housing in neighborhoods that had infrastructures to help enhance the lifestyles of the people that it served would make a better environment for everyone. She commented that she had known people who lived in public housing in the south hills area whose children were then able to go to better schools with increased parental involvement. She felt that placement of public housing in her neighborhood would result in the placement of people who were already somewhat marginalized and had to depend on the government to help them live into a community that was transient and already was at the lowest socio-economic stratum. She predicted the repeal of the policy would create an unstable environment. Councilor Pryor noted there seemed to be some fear that the repeal wOUld cause the City to concentrate low-income housing. He asked staff to speak to the notion that if the policy was repealed there would be a rush to create ghettoes. Mr. Weinman replied that it would be great if the City could build that many housing units as there were approximately 20,000 households eligible for subsidized housing, based on the last census, and altogether in the county, 3,500 households were being served. He emphasized that need exceeded capacity. He said, given all of the best efforts in the last dozen years, the City and its partners in development of low-income housing had only developed around 1,000 units to add to the low-income housing stock in a variety of locations. He indicated on a large map where the low-income housing developments were sited and where the land bank sites, the places that would be developed into future low-income housing projects, were situated. He underscored that the land bank sites were well-dispersed throughout the City. He did not think the current land bank sites presented a threat of any sort of concentration of low-income housing in one area. Councilor Solomon opined that this seemed to be more of a housekeeping issue as the repeal was tied to incorporating the language into the Consolidated Plan. She indicated she would support the resolution. Councilor Kelly questioned the necessity of getting rid of the Housing Dispersal Policy given that the low- income census tracks were not likely to get much new housing. Mr. Weinman asked HPB chair, John VanLandingham to respond. Mr. VanLandingham stated that a policy could be a bar. He recalled that the Housing Dispersal Policy was originally, as conceived of in the 1970s, meant to encourage dispersal. Now, he said, it was being used to block housing because of the way the numbers work in a particular MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 10, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session