The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM-81-0436CIf'f OF kklAttl. F'LORIDA 11'fE=OFFICE MEMORANOM, May 8, 1981 Howard V. Gary ='.E - - City Manager Scattered Site Public Housing Development Program —r City Commission Agenda Dena Spillman, Director REFERENCES �R ;.� May 15, 1981 Department of Community DeveloPment ENCLOSURES Commission of ill One of the items for discussion at teredesiteyconventionalmpublic housinglinwthe be = the proposed development of scatte Plagami area. The purpose of thismemois o tYou with tbackground he basicfeatureshe of the scattered site public housing Pmentprogra the program, and the views of the residents of the various neighborhoods in the City for which the program is proposed. In November of 1979, the City received a bonus allocation of 112 public housing units for family occupancy from the U.S. Department of HUD. This special housing - - _ allocation was predicated upon the City's agreement to use local housing bond pro- ceeds for acquisition of development sites. At the City Commission Housing Workshop of April, 1980, staff recommended that these units and an additional 125 units provided by HUD through the regular housing assis- tance allocation process be developed on a scattered site basis in several of the City's neighborhoods, including Model City, Wymwood, Coconut Grove, Little Havana - Shenandoah, and Flagami. The scattered site public housing program for these neighborhoods was proposed to _ be implemented in accordance with guidelines established for similar programs already being implemented and strongly supportedandardin lstructuresand wouldBuena beVista. acquired - Both unimproved sites and sites containing subs through negotiated purchases. Owner -occupants of improved sites would not be required (F to sell their property, regardless of its condition. In all five neighborhoods, only ' 15 owner -occupied units are being considered for acquisition. The public housing units to be developed would conform to existing zoning and the majority of units to be constructed would be single family homey and duplexes. The Commission approved the program concept and directed staff to identify potential development sites, obtain area resident views on the program concept, and report its findings to the Commission. The current status of the scattered site program is as follows: Coconut Grove On March 18, 1981, the Coconut Grove CAA/CD Advisory Board approved, in concept, the development of 28 rental units on scattered sites in the neighborhood. A sub- committee has been organized to work with the staff on specific site selection. SPF4 The Model City Community Development Advisory Board was scheduled to discuss the implementation of a scattered site program on May 11, 1981 (72 units proposed), but has recently requested a neighborhood public hearing on the subject now scheduled for May 18, 1981. Flagami At a meeting held in Flagami on April 16, 1981, area residents overwhelmingly opposed the 15 units proposed in the area. Staff was not given the opportunity to present the facts about the program. Little Havana/Shenandoah At a meeting held May 5, 1981, area residents vociferously opposed development of UP to 62 units in the area. Again, staff was not given the opportunity to explain the program. From the cornents on the scattered site program we've received from those neighbor- hoods that have expressed opposition, it is apparent that "public housing" suffers from a serious image problem. To some extent this is a factor in the strong oppo- sition which is being expressed in Flagami and Little Havana/Shenandoah, In an effort to eliminate the misconceptions many of the opponents of the program have, a small group meeting with Flagami and Little Havana/Shenandoah residents to explain the program in detail has been scheduled for May 11, 1981. Both Flagami and the Little Havana/Shenandoah residents have expressed concern that the development of scattered site public housing in their neighborhoods would reduce area property values and, specifically, the values and marketability of those homes located adjacent to and nearby the public housing units evidence with which to support or refute this concern. Certainly,There is no hard unitsto be built will do no more to property values than the substandardthe structuresr�hichd currently occupy these sites and will be eliminated through the program. Additionally, concerns have been expressed that implementation of the result in establishrr;ent of a bi-racial character in the Flagami and Littleram Havawill na/ Shenandoah area. This is true to some extent, shown that s • however, practical experience has borhood in which cthe uhousingciss deveupants loped. reflect the ethnic mix of the neigh- Flagami and Little Havana/Shenandoah residents have also expressed opposition to the intrusion of non -working families into their neighborhoods as a result of this program. The residents have been informed that 75;• of the units proposed in each neighborhood would be occupied by "working poor", t ing from $4,700 to $15,000 per year. hose families with incomes rang- rX( • F f i. f F.f � � ,:1 Y'�rSk�ni �ti �I;i� 4 G3'd y}� �t7' % ill t ; ! H�wat� Y Y oarni Page thr Ls6 May 8, 1981 Finally, Flagami and Little Havana/Shenandoah residents, as well as residents of ssed some of the other neighborhoods where this fprogram ris proposed, have aven e expre numbers concern over the number of units targeted of non -assisted dwelling units in each of thunptsgproposedam ettheeconcernsmexpressed the number of scattered site public housing are exaggerated. Available information indicates the following: Area Model City F1 agami Little Havana/ Shenandoah Wynwood Coconut Grove Total Dwelling Units (1970 Data) 6,103 9,019 No. of Scattered Site Units Proposed 72 15 62 40 29 Percentage of Total 0101 0,002 0,006 0.013 0.009 The implementation of a "scattered site" approach ininethendevelopment of ass i tesing housing for families is of paramount importance needs. project type con - To date, public housing for fao�ects havelies has bbeeneen ddeveloped eveloped ,rirnlargvery few geographic figurations. Most of these pr J rime examples. areas of the City, with the Overtown and Edison target areas being p The U.S. Depart�-ent of HUD has expre1nede°elopmentscern t�onthe a concentratserious iedaproject basis. consequences of future assisted housing d Both Overtown residents and Edison -Little Ri r residents eave expressed similar -- concerns. Also, land for such develop s ive and that land which is available is generally unsuitable for housing. ng The U.S. Department of HUD has advised Dade n SeptemberUD hat the 1981, initherabsencelofs for these housing units will be terminated on p in definite project coc.mitnments. With over 45,000a�ff�o`rd forrlosesthese�houdsingdunitseed of rental housing assistance, the Cat/ can approximately contains 10,000 Dade County's 1000 pubarcehnusber oflwhich tinq lare Mliaist ne residents. family applicants, a 9 The ramification of losing these family lilihouses. UntileMiamioachievesns dcebrtaindproductionhe s immediate need to house l otiv-i nco;r,e farm l r eS ssisted housing for fanri l ies , the City will not receive goals in the provision of a additional federal housing assistance for low incowe lderlublecshousingumusttbero- of duction statistics indicate that over 200 units of family p developed in the City before HUD allocates are need of cand�additional elderly housing such rentalhousing Over 13,000 Miami elderly couples a assistance, according to current estimates. 5 1} t t rt of l =ci �t MtM 5RANbU1M FILE Agenda het, Coitniss Toner Ayi+�ynfnn�do}. Lacasa R'iFEp�f, r •� J,• .'L'i'/�l�/�� "„�/„^; j�C :.�I�CnJ(J t. �l :lust. FlF�i _ __ I hereby request that a discussion areaylbeprlaced onosed °thenCityCommission ment low income housing for t g Agenda of May 15th.