Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #38 - Discussion Itema eCITY OF MIA%1l. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission ROM Cesar H. Odio City Manager � 33 DATE APR 2 U 11992 FILE SUBJECT Discussion Item: Boundaries of the Edison/ Little River Neighborhood REFERENCES Commission Agenda Item ENCLOSURES May 14 , 1992 Transmitted with this memorandum is a letter received from Jennifer Clark, Bayside Crime Committee, addressing the issue of the Edison/Little River Neighborhood boundaries. BACKGROUND: The City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of April 30, 1987 adopted Resolution No. 87-385, hereby attached, extending the Edison/Little River Neighborhood Community Development target area boundaries to include the area from Interstate 95 to the easterly right-of-way line of Biscayne Boulevard. (U.S. 1). The revision of the boundaries was necessary in order to allow the City to make CDBG funds available for revitalization efforts within the deteriorated commercial district along Biscayne Boulevard. UPDATE: Presently, approximately $700,000 in CDBG funds have been allocated for projects along the Biscayne Boulevard corridor. These projects include, but are not limited to, building and land acquisition for housing purposes, street improvements, commercial facade renovations and administrative funding for the Greater Biscayne Chamber of Commerce. cc: Letter enclosure D,sr%)ss:(D#4 92- 400.1 JENNIFER ASHLEY CLARK 713 Northeast 71st Street Miami, Florida 33138 (305) 757-8515 March 30, 1992 Frank Castaneda, Director City of Miami Department of Community Development Dupont Plaza Center, Suite 420 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Miami, Florida 33131-2207 Re: Objections to CHO funding for Greater Biscayne Boulevard Chamber of Commerce, target area, etc. Dear Mr. Castaneda: Thank you for meeting with me on March 23rd. I think the tour of the Northeast area with Mr. McManus and Ms. Braun was very educational for all concerned. As -you know a number of questions have been raised about the use of HUD funds in our area. From the perspective of most of the people who live in our area, the best that can be said for the use of the more than $250,000.00 of these funds in this area is that the money has been utterly wasted. At worst, these funds have subsidized a group that has historically been at odds with the people of this area, that has publically opposed our efforts against crime, and has, as was admitted publically at the City Commission meeting of March 12th, given aid and comfort to the notorious motels on Biscayne Boulevard that have plagued us for years, harboring crack and prostitution. The conduct of the Biscayne Boulevard Chamber of Commerce In general over the years, and more recent activities that served to undermine anti -crime efforts on Biscayne Boulevard, caused the committee to begin a review of its operations and the legality of its continued funding. This review led to the accumulation of the documentation we have gathered, the report prepared by the committee, our correspondence with Mr. Nichols, and the order by the City Commission for a complete investigation. - 1 - 92- 40 0.1 �i 19- - ! __ ____ - - I - - __ . 3 I am sure that upon a full inquiry you will agree that at a minimum the funding of this group must be immediately suspended, and ultimately terminated altogether. The group clearly does not qualify for this money and engages in activities that on a number of levels precludes receipt of CDBG aid. The Chamber of Commerce consists of a number of successful businesses that certainly have the ability to raise funds without taking away money that is intended to help the poor. Quite frankly, from what I have learned I must agree with Commissioner De Yurre that a review of. all CBOs be conducted by the City. After the immediate problem of the improper subsidy of this group with poverty funds is solved, the question remains as to the direction of future economic development in this area. I hope that of ter our tour of the area you have come to agree with me that, for the most part, the area alonqBiscayne.__Boulevard_.. simply_ does not meet the criteria for CDBG funds. The owners of `the off rcL5-'-b-ui ldi'ngs; shops and businesses along the Boulevard. are not poor people. They do not service low income people. You yourself said the area is not "blighted" within the meaning of HUD guidelines. Certainly the area surrounding the wealthy Bay Point residential area does not need this type of assistance. I urge you to use available poverty funds in areas where poor people can be shown the way to lift themselves from their / lot in life, and respectfully suggest that your office begin to require more specific, detailed plans for doing so. Many of the problems we face in Miami, including crime, can be traced to the poor economic conditions in some areas. People in these areas must be given assistance, and a certain degree of hope from the fact that. something is being done. This is as much your responsibility as it is the responsibility of the police �\ department when the time comes again to quell civil unrest caused by hopelessness and despair in areas that need these funds. 1 As for our area, after consultations with a number of people a consensus has developed that not only have these scarce poverty resources been wasted in our area, the fact that we have been placed into the "target area" for Edision/Little River has actually proven to be counterproductive to economic development. As you may recall, this target area was expanded arbitarily, and in my opinion improperly, without review, debate or notice to the people, in order to accomodate the Chamber of Commerce. To legally qualify for this aid, businesses must be the type to attract low to moderate income people. This type of business, however, does not suit this area or the vast majority of the people who live here, who are at or above the middle income, and in some cases ,even the upper 'income levels. We would prefer the type of development suited to these income levels, and feel that _ Z _ 92- 400.1 H c in the long term the city would benefit more from the increase in the tax base from more "upscale" development than from the use of poverty funds to drag us further into the "blighted" category. In other words, putting this area into a "target area" has a sort of "red lining" effect that we do not want. We are already the dumping ground for every social service agency and drug treatment agency in existence, a fact which is odd enough to begin with, considering the rampant drugs and crime these people are subjected to ,when they arrive. We do not need to be officially designated as a magnet for further decline. For these reasons, and the fact that we do not want another "CBO" of questionable motives and practices to resurface, the view of the people in this area is to change the Edision/Little River target area back to the original boundaries. In fact, perhaps all of the target areas should be reviewed, as the areas as now drawn cover nearly the entire city. our city may have problems, but we are not that bad off. The first step in economic recovery for Northeast Miami would be to take us out of the target area. Residents would still qualify for the home painting project on an individual basis. I also note that the County, for example, has used these funds for economic redevelopment in non —target areas also on an individual basis. I see no reason why an area business can not qualify for such funds if legitimately needed, even though the business is not within a target area. �i - � After we are taken out of the red line area, the City must focus on the three main problems that impede development here: -� (1) zoning; (2) crime; and (3) code enforcement. 'j I propose that the City create a "Biscayne Boulevard ,E Commercial District" similar to that created for the Grove, with specific limitations on the type of business in the area (which would exclude motels), design standards, and zoning restrictions that fit into the overall development plan for this area. The plan should be based upon pedestrian access to businesses from the residential areas adjacent to the Boulevard and businesses that cater to the residents. Along with these businesses would ' be others that would cater to nonresidents such as tourists or others that pass by on U.S. 1 on this main thouroughfare. In conjunction with this new development plan would be an increase in police presence, more sophisticated and in-depth investigations of the dntrenched criminal activity on Biscayne Boulevard establishments, more imaginative uses of statutes and law enforcement techniques short of standard prosecutions, and increased code enforcement. This program would complement a 92-- 400•1 - 3 - 15 positive development plan with what you might call "negative reinforcement" to push out the undesireable element. I realize that successful development for this area may seem hopeless. tie have no illusions that our area is going to change overnight. Right now, however, there is no change in the status quo at all, which is not acceptable. You can do your part by ridding us of the yoke of being inside the Edison/Little River "red line" and diverting the funds of the Chamber of Commerce to where it belongs. Perhaps if the Chamber is forced to seek its funding from donations from the community and the businesses in the area, it will begin to listen to us and will recruit many of the legitimate businesses in the area that have shunned the Chamber because of its associations, past activities and poor reputation. That would be a benefit both to the area and to the Chamber should it choose to change course and become a nosi.tive force for change in the area. I hope you find this letter and the thoughts I have expressed helpful in discharging your duties to the people of this great city. Copies to: Mayor Suarez Commissioner/Vice Mayor Alonso Commissioner Dawkins Commissioner De Yurre Commissioner Plummer Ceasar Odio, City Manager Mr. Jim Nichols, U.S. HUD M Sincerely, 1'**/ Jenni r Ashley Clark Bay side Crime Committee 4 92--- 400.1 rya Wednesday, Juno 3, 1987 s 1t,e Miami News • 9/1 DEPARTMENT -OF COMMUNITY, DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City at Miami Commission will conduct a public hearing to reconsider the expansion of the boundaries of . the Edison/Little River neighborhood community development target area eastbound to, and Including both sides of Biscayne Boulevard from 1.195 on the south to N.E. 871h Street on the north. The expansion of the Edison/Little River target area was previously approved through Resolution No. 87-385 passed by the City Commission at a public hearing held on April 30, 1987. Date: Thursday, June 11, 1987 Time: 2:5ti P.M. place:, City of Miami Commission Chamber ' 3500 Pan American Drive All interested persons will be given the opportunity to express their views on the proposed extension of the Edison/Little River target area of Community Development funds. Should any person at the public hearing desire to appeal any decision of the Cily Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, that person sliall ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made Including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may be based. 92- 400•1 CITY Or MIAMI, FLOMDA INTER -OFFICE h9EMORnNOUM TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE. FILE: of the City Commission SUBJECT- Resolution Authorizing an Amend - meat to revise and extend the boundaries of the Edison/Little River Neighborhood Community FROM Cesar 11. Odi.o REFEnENCEsDevelopment Target Area City Manager ENCLOsunEs: RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the extension of the boundaries of the Edison/Little River neighborhood community development target area eastbound to, and including both sides of Biscayne Boulevard from I-195 on the south to N.E. 87th Street on the north. BACKGROUND: The Department of Community Development has analyzed the need to extend the boundaries of the Edison/Little River neighborhood target area. The revision of the ' boundaries is necessary to include the deteriorated commercial district along Biscayne Boulevard within the Community Development target area. This will allow the City to make funds available for rehabilitation and revitalization efforts. Businesses in this area can not currently participate in the City's commercial facade program, receive financial assistance from Miami Capital Development, Inc. or receive other government program aid. The Planning Department has reviewed the request and has provided the required material for the extension. Planning also reports that the proposed addition to the Edison/Little River Community Development target area, will encompass 5,163 residence changing the Community Development areas population from 35,861 to 41,024 using the 1980 census population statistics. 92-- 400•1 I I d-87-343 4/1!87 RESOLUTI0N 110. A RESOLUTI01i EXTENDING THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE EDISO1i/LITTLE RIVER HEIGIINOR1100D COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TARGET AREA III THE CITY OF HIAHI TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT -OF -NAY LINE OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD (U.S. 1). WHEREAS, the deterioration of the neighborhood located within the herein extended boundary limit, especially in the neighborhood's business district must be halted and reversed; and WHEREAS, the area from Biscayne Boulevard to the FEC Railroad is currently outside a Community Development target area: and WHEREAS. in order to qualify for assistance under the Community Development Block Grant Guidelines, a neighborhood section must be within a designated community development target area; NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COHHISS101I OF THE CITY OF HIAHI. FLORIDA: Section 1. The easterly boundary of the Edison/Little River Neighborhood Community Development Target Area is hereby extended to include the area in the City of Miami from Interstate 95 to the easterly right-of-way line of Biscayne Boulevard (U.S. 1). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30C1L day of ,Apr i1 1987. ATTEST: 14 ATTY IiIRAI/G CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: x��z , ROBERT F. CLARK CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RFC:bss:H400 ]{AVIER L. SU FEZ. APPROVE AS TO FORM AND CORREC i SS: LU A . DOUG ERTY 2— 4 O Q • 1 CITY ATTORNEY CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF I APR 30 1561 030111101 no 87— 38 )` 3 - I