CC Minutes - 01/10/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Continuing, Mr. Weinman conveyed the HPB's position that the projects that had been built were assets to the neighborhoods in which they were constructed and would be assets to low-income census tracks as well. He said award-winning housing was constructed that enhanced neighborhoods. He related that current projects had been contrived to have fewer units in order to avoid the Housing Dispersal Policy because it created a level of uncertainty at the time the projects were conceived. Councilor Poling questioned whether sending the dispersal policy to be rewritten would duplicate what the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan set forth. Mr. Weinman responded that the suggestion was that the council jettison the free-standing Housing Dispersal Policy and fold its concepts into the Consolidated Plan, which is also adopted by the council. He reiterated that the repeal of the Housing Dispersal Policy would not go into effect until the Consolidated Plan language was adopted. 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 %uitable 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 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 10, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session