09/09/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray stated that his second was in the interest of having an interim dispersal policy. Mrs. Beal said she thought to place subsidized housing in the east and : central districts where there existed a concentration of poor people would nullify e the purpose of the dispersal plan. Mr. Williams commented that as an interim i ;1 "',j' 'poli9Y the motion would completely ignore the student population which the Committee Ji 1 :,\ !decided not to include as well as the southwest and northwest areas where there were \ , , I t, I: concerns. He agreed with Councilman Wood who thought the motion was worthless in ,relation to what was to be achieved. In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mrs.Niven; I : said they would continue to locate low-co~t housing as they had if there was no i : direction given. And Mr. Wood added that he -was primarily concerned with the con- :centration of low-income people in the southwestern section of the city. I I 1 : Vote was taken on the motion to prohibit on an interim basis location I ! ;' ! of low-cost housing in the central and east planning districts. The Corrnn ", -/ ! 'i! Chair ruled the motion failed on a tie vote - Council members Beal and 9/4/74 : - ? ',t' . ':2' Murray voting aye; Council members Williams and Wood voting no; See -'Below Councilwoman Campbell abstaining. At the conclusion of other business, Manager suggested, since there probably would : be further discussion of the 'Housing Dispersal Policy PI.an at the September 16'-' "- : meeting, that that item no~ be placed on the consent, calendar. Councilman Williams .~f~ :said unless there were objections the item would be scheduled separat~l~ for dis- I"J cussion. Councilman Murray did object. He said it appeared that when someone's " ~I .....,. 'will other than his own was not followed the procedures were juggled, and he took ./ " '. e exception to its being done so often. Mr. Williams responded that the request merely simplified the process of asking separation of committee items for discus- , sion, it involved no final substantive change. Councilman Wood said his impression' was that an item on the consent calendar would not attract as much attention as Ci,,-, ,) public hearing and he fel t 'commerits- on the Plan should be invi ted. Manager said ~,-,I ' '"1 that since it was his judgment that was challenged he felt he should comment that ! his understanding of the purpose of the consent calendar. was to try to dispose of , :nondebatable items, or those not anticipating debclte, with one motion, and not di- :recting any particular emphasis to anyone item. He said in his judgment there would be further debate on the Dispersal Plan, hence the suggestion to segregate it. The Chair 'ruled the 'item would not be segregated, that it would appear on the September 16 Council agenda as an item on the consent calendar. '.. .-- - . -- _ ._....,.. .." . ~._...~ H" Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, presented a position paper (dated September 13, 1974) in answer to concerns expressed by the Council with regard to concentrations of low-income families in nonsubsidized housing. The Joint Housing ,Corrnnittee proposed a limitation on addition of subsidized housing in areas where ~ concentration of low-income families was evident by encouraging subsidized housing in any planning district containing more than twice the citywide proportion of families in poverty with children under 18 (calculated on Federal income eligibility - criteria). Another ,Council concern - enhancing quality ~f neighborhoods to attract higher income families - would be addressed by neighborhood organizations on the basis of Corrnnunity Goals statements and through Council action at the neighborhoods' requests. Some site selection\guidelines were recorrnnended for addition to the Plan: (l) En- _ .,:. courage only small housing projects in the central and east planning districts, . :\ (2) give highest priority for subsidized housing sites to planning districts having '} both a low proportion "of subsidized family units and a low concentration of low- income families with children under 18, (3) give second priority to plan~ing districts having a low concentration of subsid.ized family housing, avoiding locations within those districts where there appeared to be a concentration of low-income families. Revisions suggested were (1) to rewrite sections of the Plan to incorporate the added guidelines including a table showing presence of poverty-level families with children under 18, (2) to delete the section of the Plan dealing with exceptions to the spacing .!"J " criteria and the central district as an exception. (1408) Councilman Murray expressed satisfaction with the proposed changes in the Plan and said they responded to the'many concerns he had. He said he was not completely con- vinced that housing for students and the elderly was not relevant to the total issue of housing dispersal and thought at some future time the Council might want to consider housing in that category. And he hoped that the issue of attracting .moderate- and higher-income people back to deserted areas would not be left entirely to neigh- _. borhood groups on the basis of the Corrnnunity Goals statements, rather that the city might take action on its own initiative. (1460) Councilman McDonald said that based on analyses by financial experts it appeared that people Hrving in the core areas were the ones who would benefit, fiTlaricia11y. He asked what amount would define "higher income." Mrs. Niven answered that in terms of attracting people into an area in order to restore it probably "higher income" would be considered that over $25,000, the median was about $12,000. 9/16/74 - '11 '3 Ze,