06/09/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e foot is considered comparable in the ordinance; and 4) the word "comparable" does not mean equal or equivalent or similar. The word is so inappropriate as to be possible grounds for chaflenging the intent of the ordinance. He added he is supporting passage of the ordinance. e Wickes Seal, 712 East 16th Avenue, member of the Aging Commission, stated that since the Delay proposal will not affect special-category tenants, they would favor it. She hopes the ordinance will be passed promptly but if changes are made she hopes they will give more pro- tection to aging, handicapped, and low-income people. She knows staff and the task force have worked hard, listened carefully, and have been responsive. She appreciates the fact that they invited everyone to work with them. She is still concerned about the housing facilitator and would prefer that the City select and pay this individual rather than the developer. Perhaps the City could maintain a list of facili- tators that the developers could select from. Hank Murrow, 1215 Arthur Street, Neighborhood Housing Resource Center, feels that language regarding cooperatives would affect their corpora- tion. The Neighborhood Block Corporation is a mini-economic development corporation in the Far West Neighborhood which has taken advantage of the City's PUD process for a low-income cooperative. He would like language dealing with cooperatives stricken at this time. Eve Horn stated she would submit written testimony. Olivia N. Clark, 327 West 5th Avenue, said she supported the ordinance but is not in favor of it as it relates to cooperatives. She does not feel as much time was:spent with the cooperative issue as was spent with condominiums and this would penalize groups that have been working with the City's HCC Department. She feels capital may not be available for low-income non-profit cooperatives to pay the $500-per- unit tax and would like to make certain that the door is not closed to these groups. She suggested striking the language referring to cooperatives from the ordinance. Clark Cox, 1085 Patterson, Apt. 9, stated that he favors deletion of the $500 fee. He favors the ordinance in principle but is concerned about cooperatives being included. He has a mental and physical disability according to Social Security standards but would probably not be considered a special-category tenant by the standards within this ordinance. Social Security has stated that he is not employable, yet he would not be able to be involved in cooperatives should they be included in this ordinance. On page 17, paragraph 1, there is mention of leased units and he would also be excluded from recourse because he has a month-to-month rental agreement as do many other people. He feels the loopholes should be blocked. e 6/9/80--11