Resident Centered Resolution to Keep Public Housing Public:
Making Minneapolis a National Leader in Protecting Public Housing as a Public Good

WHEREAS, housing is a human right; and

WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis is facing a housing crisis; and

WHEREAS, this housing crisis has caused a homelessness crisis; and

WHEREAS, ensuring all residents have decent and stable housing that is affordable (30% of their income) to Minneapolis residents is an important priority concern of this Mayor and City Council; and

WHEREAS, building more public housing that is 100% publicly owned is the best way to do so; and

WHEREAS, 25,000 Minneapolis residents currently live in public housing, with tens of thousands more on the waiting list; all are poor, and over 80% are people of color, immigrants, refugees, seniors and people with disabilities; and

WHEREAS, it is important to clarify that housing that is most often publicly described as “affordable” is not affordable for low-income households; and

WHEREAS, there is an increased support for funding public housing at the Federal, State, and Local levels; and

WHEREAS, indicative of this change the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority received increased funding from HUD in 2018, including a 45% increase in Capital Funding; and

WHEREAS, the Draft 2019 Federal Spending Bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee further increases Federal funding for public housing; and

WHEREAS, preventing the long term loss of homes requires building more public housing as a public good; and

WHEREAS, over 18,000 people have signed a petition to keep public housing in Minneapolis public; and

WHEREAS, the City Council rejects the notion that preserving or expanding public housing requires privatization, including any method of privatization, be it Section 8 privatization, RAD, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Section 18 Disposition, and others; and

WHEREAS, MPHA has recently informed members of the City Council and Mayor of their “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan for 2018-2020,” a plan to privatize public housing properties by transferring ownership of its publicly owned properties to a private non-profit corporation pursuant to the HUD-administered Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) and to cancel all current public housing leases and replace them with Section 8 vouchers, a process which was rejected by residents at the Glendale Townhomes in 2015; and

WHEREAS, Section 8 has failed residents throughout the nation and Twin Cities, and MPHA’s current plans to displace low-income seniors on fixed incomes out of public housing, and their community, and give them Section 8 vouchers would worsen the chronic homelessness crisis among seniors; and

WHEREAS, residents of public housing have rights as guaranteed under Federal, State, Local, and International Human Rights laws which must be respected and enforced; and

WHEREAS, relocation is displacement, and research from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs has found that as few as 1 in 5 relocated residents may return to their homes, but the real experiences of these residents is that they never come back; and

WHEREAS, MPHA is unable to make any promises as to the future of residents at any properties whose ownership and control has been transferred to private entities; and

WHEREAS, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority was created by the City Council and in significant part relates to the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor pursuant to the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 420; and

WHEREAS, the MPHA has responsibility as a public agency to maintain public housing properties as a public good and, pursuant to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Chapter 420, to file quarterly reports with the City and comply with the City’s community engagement process; and

WHEREAS, in violation of the Chapter 420’s reporting requirements MPHA has not filed quarterly reports with the City Council and, in violation of MPHA, HUD, and City community engagement policies, and has failed to actively encourage resident and community participation in the 8 month redevelopment planning process that produced MPHA’s “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan,” a plan which will displace thousands of people from MPHA’s high-rises through RAD and Section 8 privatization and displacement; and

WHEREAS, MPHA has deliberately hid the dangers of the RAD privatization mechanism from public housing residents as documented by their decision to file a Letter of Intent to privatize the Elliot Twins, located in Ward 6, in 2017 without informing either residents or the city; and

WHEREAS, public housing in Minneapolis is important to its residents, and the City Council and Mayor seek an open working partnership with resident leaders and organizers who are working hard to save public housing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council are not persuaded that any form of privatization of Minneapolis public housing stock, whether via transfer of ownership to a private, non-public entity, sale to a private developer, or otherwise, is warranted; and

WHEREAS, a February 2018 GAO report called for by Rep. Maxine Waters documents the lack of accountability for the dangers of the RAD program because HUD has been unwilling or unable to take responsible steps to ensuring the safety of residents in the nation-wide RAD redevelopment process, which underlines the importance of City Council and Mayoral vigilant involvement; and

WHEREAS, the residents at the first two properties scheduled for privatization through RAD (Elliot Twin Towers and Glendale Townhomes) include a high percentage of East African Somali and Oromo seniors and elders, and MPHA’s plans would result in disparate impact as defined by the Fair Housing Act; and

WHEREAS, the City of Minneapolis has long prioritized subsidies for landlords and developers over funding for public housing;  

NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis:

1. That any plan for public housing that is not created, supported, and approved by residents is not legitimate.

2. That any plan that require residents to be relocated for redevelopment purposes is displacement.

3. That any plan that transfers public housing to private Section 8 ownership, or any other form of privatization, dismantles public housing as a public good.
   
   
4. Section 8 vouchers are not a replacement for public housing.
   
   
5. That “deeply subsidized” or “deeply affordable” housing is not the same thing as public housing or income based housing at 30% of income for rent.
   
   
6. The City of Minneapolis will exercise its authority, good offices, and public voice to oppose all forms of privatization of public housing in Minneapolis, including RAD, LIHTC, removal of DOT,  and to
   a) screen disinvestment history and any plans for public housing, including but not limited to Glendale in Ward 2, Elliot Twins in Ward 6, Rainbow Terrace in Ward 5, and Friendly and Spring Manors in Ward 3, for disparate racial, ethnic, religious impact;
   b) protect all public housing and build more; and
   c) oppose the sale and lease or transfer of ownership of public housing buildings; d) eliminate future displacements; e) fund public housing as a public good;
   f) hold MPHA accountable to fix and repair properties (such as Elliot Twins and Glendale Townhomes

7. Exercise due diligence in monitoring that the requirements of  a) Chapter 420; b) MPHA’s Community Engagement obligations; The 1980 Minneapolis City’s special law that limits the power of MPHA and d) federal safeguards are followed.

8. Earn a position of state and national leadership by guaranteeing housing as a human right by funding public housing , keeping public housing public  as a public good, and adhering to this Resolution.

(PDF Here: Resident Centered Resolution, July 30, 2018)

Scattered Sites into Fourplexes: A Factsheet

MPHA’s Annual 2019 MTW Report Reveals Plans to Privatize Over 730 Single Family Units, Transforming Them Into the Fourplexes that Mayor Frey & the 2040 Comp Plan Endorse.

Introduction/Background

On July 20th, 2018 , MPHA released their 2019 MTW Annual Plan, http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2019-MTW-Annual-Plan-DRAFT-for-public-review.pdf

they plan to submit to HUD by October 18, 2018 for approval. ~To remind our allies, the MTW Annual report is their annual report where MPHA has deregulation status from HUD and Ben Carson where HUD basically allows MPHA to be flexible on how they spend funds, new housing initiatives, etc as long as the local community, City and residents are engaged and approve their plans and process.~ This annual report details their operations and programs and investments they plan to implement for the following year. They must submit this report each year. For the 2018, MPHA introduced a plan to start their privatization agenda by asking the HUD to waive the DOT( Declaration of Trust) that protects the public housing from being privatized. As far as we know, HUD has rejected these proposals and MPHA had to submit their application again. HUD has yet to approve MPHA’s 2018 MTW Annual plan that will privatize some of their properties.

Even though MPHA tried to use non-threatening language in their 2019 MTW Annual Plan, the 85 page report explains in detail how MPHA will privatize, dismantle public housing units and displace their low-income residents. In the coming week DG&PHC will share an in-depth analysis of this report. In this statement we want bring your attention to a specific proposal in the report where MPHA details how they plan to demolish and dispose of over 730 single family public housing homes that are cheaper to build fourplexes. This is in line with Mayor Jacob Frey and Minneapolis City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to build fourplexes by demolishing small to medium size family homes thereby displacing poor families with children, doubling the property taxes of the neighborhoods and more. See page 8 to 9 where MPHA explains their process to accomplishing this goal. http://mphaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2019-MTW-Annual-Plan-DRAFT-for-public-review.pdf

Pg. 8 -9: MPHA calls this section : “Preserving and stabilizing MPHA Scattered Sites through Section 18”

• Scattered sites are over 730 single family homes that are public where low-income families with children reside.
• These homes are located throughout the majority of the city’s wards.
• Section 18: Demolition and Disposition of Public Housing. This is the process by which scattered sites will be demolished. The link below explains this process.
• https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/demodispopihsection18.pdf
• Public housing authorities usually apply for Section 18 from HUD when properties are in such bad physical conditions that the housing authority can’t repair or rehab them, making the properties unsuitable to house families.

On Page 8, MPHA writes: “Under HUD’s Section 18 process, MPHA would transfer ownership

(HUD calls this process “disposition”) of the scattered sites (AMP 2) to a non-profit established and fully controlled by MPHA.” This sentence means the following:

• MPHA will remove the public ownership and privatize over 730 small family public housing homes and turn over the homes to a private non-profit corporation that MPHA will become, leaving no city, state, or federal oversight. MPHA does not want to be a public agency anymore. If the City and HUD approve, there will be no public accountability from City, State, or HUD. This is privatization.
• The 730 family homes will then be eligible to be sold by this non-profit corporation and flip the homes.

On page 8, MPHA writes: “This necessary step would allow MPHA to apply for Section 8 Tenant Protection Vouchers (TPVs) which would provide a higher level of funding for each family than under the current public housing structure. Residents may agree to project-base TPVs in the scattered site units they occupy. “ This sentence means the following:

• TPV(Tenant Protection Voucher) is a Section 8 Voucher that low-income families can use to find rental housing in the private market. Rent is 30% of income for rent.
• MPHA as a the new private non-profit corporation will then become the owner of former MPHA properties and land. The private non-profit corporation will apply for Section 8 Funding- the “ higher level of funding” from the “affordable housing funds” from City, State, County and Federal to redevelop the homes into fourplexes or any other private development the city allows.
• Before any redevelopment takes place, the low-income public housing families will be given an option to move out with a Section 8 voucher. Due to gentrification many are no longer renting to Section 8 families.

On Page 9, MPHA writes: “ Physical condition of a scattered site property may be such that it is unsustainable in the near-term even under the increased subsidy. In these cases—which MPHA will identify as we explore our HUD Section 18 application—MPHA would seek HUD approval for other outcomes that would allow us to serve the same or more families (for example, by rebuilding a fourplex where a single-family home once stood). Families in these homes would receive TPVs and full relocation benefits, to which they are entitled by law. If they choose, we would accommodate them elsewhere within our scattered site portfolio” This sentence means the following:

• MPHA will evaluate the 730 plus family homes stage by stage as unsuitable and uninhabitable for families in order to apply for Section 18, despite homes being in good structural shape and condition The city will not object to this because MPHA has been doing its own inspections for decades even though according to City’s Ordinances 420 and Special Law passed in 1980 limits the power of MPHA and gives greater legal oversight to the City of Minneapolis. https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2018-00866
• Note the MPHA sentence: “ unsustainable near-term even under the increased subsidy.” this means once the corporation takes over the property and gets all of the “affordable funds”, it can say, ‘oh well we tried to keep the property but we need to demolish because of its condition.’ And then flip it to fourplexes.
• This will then allow the rebuilding of fourplex in the land that these small family homes were once located.
• These Fourplexes are the same plans that Mayor Jacob Frey and the 2040 Comprehensive Plans have been promoting.
• The fourplexes will not be rehousing former tenants because they will have been built for the wealthy. By the time the fourplexes are built the tenants will be displaced and priced out of their former neighborhood.

• The families may receive 3 months to 30 day notices to vacate their homes and find housing with their Section 8 Vouchers. Learn more here: Sahrooni’s Story About Section 8 Voucher System
• The neighborhoods that lose public housing to fourplexes will become more expensive.
• The property taxes for working class home owners will increase to a point of possible foreclosures at risk.
• Corporations will become the new landlords of the city, promoting luxury fourplexes and buildings.
• Mayor Jacob Frey and MPHA have built a strong partnership to dismantle over 730 public housing family homes for Fourplexes for the rich.

On page 7, MPHA writes: “Private investment for rehabilitation and repair—with

underlying public control and public management—is not privatization. Redevelopment and reinvestment—without displacement—is not gentrification.”

This means that MPHA’s 42 high-rises, over 730 homes, Glendale Townhomes and more public housing units that are now 100% public, will become 100% private, which will displace tens of thousands of low-income people of color, immigrants, refugees, seniors, families with children, and disabled folk…

• A diverse pool of private developers will take over 99.9% of the ownership of the properties with no charge to them, in addition to “ affordable housing funds”.
• The underlying public control MPHA mentions is 0.01% which will not even be public, as MPHA will be a private non-profit corporation with no public accountability with no city, state, county or federal oversight.
• Redevelopment and reinvestment with private investment is displacement and gentrification. Over 26,000 people will be pushed out of Minneapolis through the destruction of public housing in Minneapolis.

Another discrepancy

For the past four years and as recent as 2017 MPHA stated that they have 6,241 public housing units in stock and now according to their website MPHA has  5940 public housing units. MPHA is not able to explain to the public what happened to 101 public housing units and to the tenants that lived in these units. MPHA needs to share with the public where these homes disappeared without public knowledge because they are a public agency with public accountability.                       

Lack of resident notification at the public housing units.

• MPHA sent a letter notifying residents that the 2019 MTW Plan has come out and if they want to read it they have to go online.
• MPHA stated that if residents want to comment on this report they have to comment online by sending an email.
• MPHA knows a majority of public housing residents do not have access to computers and may not have emails accounts.
• MPHA also knows that more than half of their public housing population don’t speak English.

Despite these violations, MPHA sent out these notices on their website: mphaonline.org

• Aug. 15: Informational presentations held from 1 to 3 pm and 5 to 7 pm at 1815 Central Avenue in Minneapolis.
• Aug. 22: Public hearing following MPHA Board of Commissioners regular 1:30 pm monthly meeting at 1001 Washington Avenue North in Minneapolis.
• Aug. 27: Deadline for MPHA to receive public comment on the draft MTW Annual Plan.
• Sept. 26: Board final review and vote.
• Oct. 18: Plan due to HUD.
• To leave public comment on the draft MTW Annual Plan, email MTW@MplaPHA.org, or mail to MPHA MTW Comments, Room 204, 1001 Washington Avenue N. Minneapolis, MN 55401. The comment deadline is August 27, 2018.

There is no avenue for residents that don’t have computers or those that don’t speak English comment to this plan.

(PDF Here: Scattered Sites into Fourplexes A Factsheet)

July 26, 2018

“Forget About the Section 8 Voucher and Keep Your Public Housing”
A Message from a Section 8 Resident who is Experiencing Displacement through Section 8

Sahrooni, photographed at left outside her home, is a Somali immigrant, a young mother of two, and a Section 8 voucher recipient. She moved to the Twin Cities from Boston about 4 years ago, and currently lives with her two children at the Normandale Lake Estates apartment complex in Bloomington. However, for the second time in two years, Sahrooni is being forced to move after new owners purchased the building and evicted tenants in order to “flip” the building. The new owners have told residents that they will no longer be accepting Section 8. Adding to the trauma, stress, and financial burden that accompanies this kind of housing instability, Sahrooni and other Section 8 voucher holders face a frightening prospect: Section 8 requires that voucher holders find housing within three months or forfeit their voucher.

For many voucher holders, a loss of their voucher means a loss of housing altogether. These Section 8 voucher holders choose to remain in the program in spite of the constant threat of eviction and upheaval because their only alternative is homelessness. According to MPR, when the Metropolitan Council opened their Section 8 waiting list in 2015, they received over 36,000 applications for 2,000 spots.¹ This is a reflection not of the program’s effectiveness, but of the depth of the housing crisis.

Sahrooni has agreed to share her story with Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition so that we can bring her knowledge and experience to a broader audience. Sahrooni feels strongly that the Section 8 program does not work for residents like her. Given MPHA’s current plans to privatize public housing and replace it with the Section 8 program, her story is a critically important one.

“It Makes Me Not Want To Live Here Anymore”

Sahrooni had been living at the Crossroads at Penn apartment complex in Richfield with her family for about a year when she and around 670 other renters were evicted in late 2015. In a case that has become well publicized, Sahrooni and her fellow tenants were displaced when new owners purchased the building and rebranded it as “The Concierge.” Sahrooni had an eight day old daughter when she was given her 30-day notice to vacate. “It was discrimination. He (the new owner) wanted young white people to live there, not families and Section 8 holders, or Africans, and Latinx people.”

Although Sahrooni and other displaced residents did receive $1,500 from a settlement negotiated with the building’s new owners by the Housing Justice Center and Homeline, it didn’t even cover her costs. “I had to pay a deposit, I had to pay the movers. It cost $2,500.” Making this worse, Sahrooni just received payment earlier this year, more than two years after her move. “It was a ripoff,” she says, pointing out how much of the settlement went to lawyers and developers rather than the displaced tenants.

A few months after their eviction, Sahrooni and her family (along with other families from Crossroads) moved into the Normandale Lake Estates apartment complex in Bloomington.

But less than two years after they moved to their new home, Sahrooni received notice that her new home, Normandale Lake Estates, had been purchased, and that she had 30 days to vacate. “It was horrible. When you move in, after a year you find out this place has been sold. It makes me not want to live here anymore”. Although Sahrooni has negotiated an extension not to be displaced right away while she searches for a new home, the notice had the desired effect. The buildings now sit almost entirely empty while the new owners begin to remodel the buildings in order to justify the $300-$400 monthly rent increase. “I feel depressed and sad,” she says.

She worries about other residents who were displaced. “I’m healthy and I’m a strong woman and I know that I can do this, but other people are disabled.” She tells us about a family she knows who had to move away. “They couldn’t afford the rent, so they moved to Green Bay. But right now I am helping them find a new place. The mother is blind, the daughter is disabled, and the other has mental illness. They can’t find a home. I am trying to help them find a place they can call home.”

Like many other low-income tenants, Sahrooni works hard to help her fellow tenants find homes, even as she herself struggles to find housing. If Sahrooni is unable to find housing by September, she will be homeless. If that were to happen, she would face the additional threat of losing her Section 8 voucher.

Photograph of Normandale Lake Estates

When asked about how Section 8 works, Sahrooni is clear. “It doesn’t work. How can you save money when every two years you have to move?” Sahrooni has two young children, but her constant upheaval prevents her from finding childcare for her children. She fears how this instability may impact her children as they get older and become aware of what is going on.

Her experience is mirrored across the nation, as more and more Section 8 voucher recipients struggle to find and keep housing with their vouchers. Studies conducted around the country show that large percentages of Section 8 voucher recipients are forced to give up their voucher

because they are unable to find housing using it. One study in California found that up to 64% of Section 8 voucher recipients had to give up their voucher². Even those who find housing are not safe. Sahrooni’s experience demonstrates how Section 8 voucher recipients can be displaced if their building owner decides to sell it off to investors who raise the rent.

Compounding this problem is the racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia Sahrooni, a Somali immigrant, faces. During her search for a new home, Sahrooni viewed or called 15-20 apartments. She sometimes faced hostility and discrimination. She recounts one experience at a building in South Minneapolis where a property manager kept requesting more and more documentation, always telling her they needed more documents, even when she provided what they asked for. When Minneapolis’ new ordinance barring discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders was overturned, this manager told Sahrooni that because they were no longer required to accept Section 8 voucher holders, they would not accept her application. “It was discrimination,” she says.

Sahrooni’s story is just one story among thousands. Across the Twin Cities and across the nation, more and more low-income residents are finding that the Section 8 program does not work as advertised.

A Brief History of the Section 8 Program

The Section 8 program was created in 1974 when Gerald Ford signed the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) into law.³ Although Section 8 is often described as a subsidy for low-income households, the program actually subsidizes landlords, who receive Section 8 payments directly from the government. Under the program, renters originally paid 25% (raised to 30% in 1981) of their income in rent, with the government paying the difference between that amount and a predetermined “Fair Market Rent” (FMR).

The act was written in response to Richard Nixon’s moratorium on HUD spending in early 1973, motivated by his opposition to public housing. Deciding “to shift housing policy away from the large production programs,” Nixon proposed instead “direct housing allowances for low-income citizens.”⁴ With the spending moratorium as leverage, Richard Nixon’s administration negotiated the HCDA, which was signed by Gerald Ford less than two weeks after he took office. According to the New York Times, the New York HUD Director revealed another motivation for the Section 8 program: wealthy communities often fought against proposed public housing buildings and homes in their neighborhoods.⁵ In other words, wealthy white neighborhoods did not want low-income housing in their neighborhoods, a dynamic which continues to perpetuate income and racial segregation. The voluntary nature of the Section 8 voucher program was intended to negate this issue.

From the beginning, Section 8 had its critics. A 1973 New York Times article outlining Nixon’s housing agenda (including a new focus on vouchers rather than building and providing housing directly), includes a quote from the well known African American Civil Rights lawyer Percy Sutton who described the plan to move to a voucher system as putting “the slum landlord on

welfare,” adding that because the program “does nothing to increase the available supply of decent housing,” rent levels would go up.⁶ Because of this opposition, the Section 8 program still built or rehabbed new units in order to increase the supply of affordable housing. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s administration that the full-fledged voucher system we know today really began to take off, with a 1981 New York Times article characterizing Reagan’s approach as a “shift from new production subsidies to the voucher approach.”⁷ But since at least Nixon’s administration, the general trend in housing policy has been increased funding and emphasis on the Section 8 program for landlords and the private market, and declining emphasis and funding for public housing.

Understanding the history of Section 8 is important because it reveals a hidden truth: although the stated goal of the Section 8 program is to help low-income families find housing, the motivation underlying its creation was the termination of public housing in favor of a market-based housing program. Knowing this helps us make sense of how the program currently works (or, more accurately, doesn’t work) in the Twin Cities and around the nation.

MPHA’s Current Plans to Convert Public Housing to Section 8

In spite of the well documented issues with Section 8, desperate renters still flock the program. Meanwhile, MPHA has proposed a radical plan to “Change the Subsidy,” by moving all of the current residents in public housing, over 11,000 low-income people of color, 75% Black, Black Muslims, and disabled, elders, families with children that live in over 740 homes, 42 high- rise buildings, Glendale Townhomes and more, to Project Based Section 8 vouchers in order to sell 99.99% ownership of public housing buildings to private investors. The private developers will essentially get these buildings for free because they will apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, other tax credits, and “affordable housing funds” from the City of Minneapolis, State, and Federal Government. History shows that these private owners will displace residents, just like what is happening to Sahrooni, and the thousands of residents who have Section 8 but can’t find housing. Since MPHA was not successful in displacing residents by directly selling their buildings, now they want to displace residents by using the Section 8 Voucher system by turning the buildings over to private owners. MPHA will then let the private owners displace and evict residents because MPHA will turn 99.99% of the control and ownership over to these private investors. At that point neither MPHA nor the City of Minneapolis, or any other government, will have any mechanism to prevent this crisis from happening. If MPHA does move to a Section 8 system, these Section 8 waitlists will be increased substantially, as MPHA would be taking vouchers away from households who have been on the waiting list for as long as 7 to 10 years. These vouchers will be given to public housing residents, which will displace them. This plan would be a disaster, and will change the City of Minneapolis forever for the worse.

Sahrooni’s Message

We asked Sahrooni if public housing residents should accept MPHA’s plans and take Section 8 vouchers. She was adamant:

“No! Public housing is better. Forget about the Section 8 voucher and keep your public housing. If MPHA follow their plans, it will cause homelessness, people will lose their jobs and their home. They will not have their own place, they will not have an address. They will not have a community. It’s going to be a crisis.”

“People say ‘Oh we don’t take (the Section 8 voucher). We used to take it, but we don’t anymore.” They say it is because of paperwork but it is really discrimination. They want people to be homeless. It’s really really bad. It’s a crisis. I am blaming Donald Trump and Ben Carson.”

But Sahrooni’s experience also shows that local politicians are complicit in this crisis. “The DFL politicians are not protecting us. If they were, we would not be losing money and facing homelessness.”

Conclusion

Section 8 is not working for low- income residents. Residents are forced to use Section 8 to avoid homelessness, but many are unable to find housing with their voucher. Those that do face evictions and uncertainty. Each time they are evicted, they risk losing their voucher and becoming homeless. The history of Section 8 shows how it was always designed to push people onto the private market by subsidizing landlords instead of providing housing for those in need. MPHA’s plans supported by Mayor Jacob Frey are just the latest chapter in this long history. Minneapolis has the chance to save public housing, and to build new public housing for the future. Instead, they want to use the broken Section 8 program to privatize. But residents like Sahrooni are speaking out and sharing their story.

“I’m glad I’m talking about it. It’s wrong what (the people who bought Crossroads and Normandale Lake Estates) did. No one said sorry. Thanks to Allah because I want others to hear. I want people to be able to protect themselves. People need to find out if their place is going to be sold. People need to know their rights.”’

(PDF of this article here: Sahrooni’s Story About Section 8 Voucher System)

Comments to the Minneapolis City’s Housing Policy and Development Committee Regarding the Relationship between MPHA and City Council
July 25, 2018

We commend the Housing Policy and Development Committee, and it’s Chair Council Member Cam Gordon for initiating a process for clarifying the relationship between MPHA and the City Council. We welcome the City Attorney’s report https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/File/2018-00866 as a good start on this important conversation. A conversation that is so important to good, effective, and prudent governance, and protection of valuable public assets that are in such critical need by thousands of residents of Minneapolis.

Due to the importance of the public understanding of this relationship, and the acknowledgement that the City Council retains the legal authority, (and hence the special responsibility), to exercise important areas of monitoring the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, and through ordinance, amendment, City provides additional direction as deemed needed, in addition to its responsibility as the City’s elected legislative body to use its good offices to do what it can to protect its residents from bad public policy, we urge the Committee not to quit on this conversation just as it is getting started. Instead, we ask City Council to open a 60 day public comment period to help spotlight the full extent of the current legal and work-a-day relationship, and examine ways to improve the City Council’s ability to exercise due diligence oversight of MPHA plans, and operations that impact the lives of so many Minneapolis residents.

The City Attorney’s report is particularly helpful in correcting the often stated notion that MPHA is a completely, and irrevocably an independent political body over which the City Council permanently has no say, no opening, or no business even to say anything about MPHA plans , and operations regardless of how imprudent and harmful to Minneapolis residents those plans and operations are. It is clear from this report that MPHA is and remains subject to City Council ordinances and monitoring as underlined by the City Attorney’s. For example:

1) That under Minneapolis Ordinance Chapter 420, MPHA has been and is obligated to report quarterly to the City Council and, in addition, respond to questions posed by the Mayor and City Council;

2) That the Mayor and City Council have authority under Chapter 420 not only to appoint, but to remove the Commissioners they have appointed, with or without cause. This last part (“with or without cause”) is quite important because it means the Mayor and City Council retain considerable oversight authority, and can remove Commissioners, for example, for taking positions or pursuing plans and making decisions that, in the Mayor and City Council’s view are wrong public policy; and

3) That the 1980 Special Law that authorized the City to create the new specifically provided that the City may, by ordinance, impose limitations on the actions of the new agency.

The City Attorney’s Report is very helpful. But, we have spotted in the short time we had to review it since it was posted, a few relevant items in the City’s Code of Ordinances missing from the report that bear on the City’s on-going authority and responsibility over the MPHA. We recommended for more analysis from City’s Attorney’s Office. For example:

1. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (Chapter 420.40) includes this: “. . . all commissioners shall be appointed in conformance with the city’s open appointments process unless otherwise specifically provided therein.” Chapter 14.180, the ordinance prescribing the city’s open appointment process does NOT exempt MPHA Commissioners from the open appointments process.
2. Statement of Economic Interest filing requirements: Chapter 15.80 (a)(4) requires MPHA Commissioners to file with the City Clerk an initial Statement of Economic Interest and thereafter annual Statements of Economic Interest. Have the Commissioners been in complaint with this Chapter 15.80 (a((4)? This is not some long-forgotten ordinance from ages ago. See this ordinance with strikeouts and adds as amended most recently (Jan. 15, 2016) at https://library.municode.com/mn/minneapolis/ordinances/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=753026 .

The memorandum provided by the MPHA providing a list of its resident participation requirements omits substantial sources of its resident participation obligations, and the violations they are committing now:

1. City Council Resolution 2015R-402 (October 9, 2015), authored by Council Members Goodman and Gordon, in which the City Council has unanimously required that the planning process for Glendale Townhomes be “an open, transparent public process that will include participation of the neighborhood association and Glendale residents.” Online at http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@chttp://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@council/documents/proceedings/wcms1p-150422.pdfouncil/documents/proceedings/wcms1p-150422.pdf. MPHA has failed to have an open and transparent public process when regarding their continued plans to demolish Glendale, privatize the land, and displace residents.

2. MPHA’s own “Guiding Principles” adopted by MPHA Board of Commissioners (May 24, 2017)include several promises to honor what it says is the residents’ “right to participate”:

• MPHA will engage in a public, portfolio-wide planning process to assess the needs and mission-oriented opportunities at all properties
• MPHA will encourage active and meaningful resident and community participation throughout the planning and implementation process, and seek collaborations and partnerships with the City of Minneapolis, other governmental agencies, and housing advocates where appropriate.
• MPHA intends that residents participate and contribute to the planning and design discussions. If MPHA has a redevelopment opportunity that includes strategies not previously anticipated by the agency, MPHA commits to bring these approaches to the residents as soon as possible for an open review and discussion of the options.”

3. MPHA’s continues to fail in its promise to honor residents’ rights to participate by continued marginalization, retaliation, and silencing tactics under Executive Director Greg Russ’s and current Commissioners’ leadership.

• MPHA says they will encourage active, meaningful resident and community participation throughout any and all of their planning and implementation process.

• However, MPHA fails to keep this promise to citizens of Minneapolis and residents of public housing citywide.

• For example, in their latest privatization plan called, “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan 2018 to 2020” that MPHA submitted to Housing & Policy Committee in order to dismantle public housing through Section 8 project based where 99.9 % of the land and buildings will be turned over to private developer which will displace tens and thousands of public housing residents, MPHA failed to send out notifications about this plan to residents of public housing.

• Residents were not notified by any means about MPHA’s “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”.
• Our allies found MPHA’s “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan” document online.

Therefore, regarding Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”, MPHA failed to:

• Provide access to the document by mailing or delivering the documents to all and any public housing residents.
• Hold public meetings to explain about their latest plan
• To provide 30 day notice for public comments.
• Collect and refuse to hear public comments during their Board meeting on May 23, 2018 where they approved this policy without public input.
• MPHA violated the public comments by failing to provide transparent and fair community engagement process.
• Somali residents of Elliot Twins filed written complaints to MPHA of harassment, racism, and xenophobia by individuals handpicked by MPHA to silence residents so they do not speak out on MPHA’s plans to displace residents thorough any of MPHA’s privatization mechanism including their latest “Strategic Vision & Capital Plan for 2018-2010”. Greg Russ continues to normalize this behavior by ignoring the current abuses, and protecting the individuals who are violating residents’ rights.
• Greg Russ and Communication Director, Jeff Horwich, continue to demonize and target through social media resident leaders of our campaign. In addition, Jeff Horwich trolls allies who signed our petition to Mayor Jacob Frey and City of Minneapolis that is currently at over 18, 200 signatures. https://campaigns.organizefor.org/petitions/minneapolis-public-housing-authority-don-t-auction-off-our-homes-to-the-highest-bidder
• The many public housing residents do not speak English. Therefore, MPHA continues to violate its obligation for Limited English Proficiency, which is a part of federal and state laws by failing to notify residents about this meeting including the notices, and interpreting.
• MPHA continues to misrepresent their financials to the City, and the public by claiming that they do not have funds to continue operating public housing as a public good. We have yet to receive financial audits, and line items of the backlog they claim for the upcoming years. However, MPHA’s own records show that they are financially very sound and healthy. MPHA’s latest plan is turning the buildings over to Section 8 project based where 99.9 % of the buildings will be owned by private developers. Even though residents have not approved these plans, and MPHA failed to notify residents, MPHA is now lobbying the city, and it says this will bring in more funds. The evidence show that these funds will go to private developers, MPHA will no longer be a public agency, and once the developers take over the buildings, low- income residents will be displaced by the thousands with no protection as the buildings turn to high-end luxury apartments. This will be the end of public housing. In addition, MPHA has a surplus of $23 million dollars, HUD increased their capital funding in 2018 by 42%, and HUD plans to increase their capital funding in 2019. Why are they not using these funds now to keep public housing public? With the current lack of oversight, how can the public trust MPHA?

4. MPHA has repeatedly said that it expects the residents and community to hold them accountable to honor the rights of residents, but it is clear that MPHA continues to violate the rights of residents throughout.

• MPHA has made further, basic public promises that we expect the community to hold us to.”

Source: MPHA’s MTW Annual Plan for 2018, APPENDIX C: Responses to Public Comments on the 2018 Draft MTW Annual Plan, page 3.

• “Extensive resident engagement is essential to any project, and we expect residents and the community to hold us to these.”

Source: MPHA Commentary, Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 5, 2017.

Now the City Council is part of “the community” that MPHA says should hold MPHA accountable for its resident participation promises, and resident treatment, we expect City Council to begin acknowledging its authority and responsibility over MPHA.

Conclusion and Recommendations

We mention these issues to document the materials provided to the Committee so far should be viewed as a good way to open public comment on the tools currently and potentially available to the City Council for exercising authority and responsibility over the actions of the MPHA, but not be taken as the final, comprehensive word on the subject.

In addition to opening, a 60-day public comment period on the documents received by the Committee to-date, there are several prudent steps that the Committee may wish to take at this time to expeditiously follow up on, based on information brought to light so far. For example, decide:

1. How it will respond to the fact that MPHA has not been complying with Chapter 420’s requirement that it file quarterly reports?
2. How (going forward) it will ensure that MPHA files quarterly reports and respond to financial audits/ oversight that needs to completed?
3. What questions about MPHA activity it (or the City Council) will ask MPHA to include in its future reports?
4. How it will ensure that all MPHA commissioners are selected pursuant to the Open Appointment process and confirmed (or rejected) by the Mayor or City Council?
5. How it will ensure that the MPHA’s list of resident participation obligations be amended to include 1) the City Council’s September 2015 Resolution and 2) the resident and participation promises made by the MPHA to be monitored and enforced?
6. How it will monitor MPHA Commissioners’ obligation to timely file annual Statements of Economic Interest as required by Minneapolis ordinance?
7. How it will respond about MPHA’s discriminatory treatments towards residents to marginalize, silence and target residents participation and organizing to save their homes and community?

If the Committee believes that MPHA has not been complying with 1) the quarterly reports requirement of Chapter 420; 2) the requirements of Chapter 15.180 regarding the filing of Statements of Economic Interest with the City Clerk; or 3) the Open Appointments Process for each of MPHA’s current nine Commissioners, the Committee could ask the MPHA (or the City Clerk) to provide copies of the documents that confirm compliance with these items or request that Committee staff make relevant inquiry, and report back for the Committee’s next meeting.

(PDF of Comments Found Here: DG&PHC Comments to Housing Policy & Dev. Committee)

Dear Allies,

We are an apolitical campaign and do not endorse candidates. That said, please see this letter of support from Haaris Pasha, who is the first candidate in this election to support our campaign.

A letter from Haaris Pasha for MN House 60B

Dear Allies:

We have found out that the Star Tribune will soon publish a PR piece about MPHA’s executive director Greg Russ and his privatization plans to dismantle and displace Minneapolis Public Housing through RAD (Rental Assistance Demonstration) a tool that allows public housing agencies to privatize public housing, once they have approval from HUD and the City.  For the record, MPHA has not shared their RAD applications with the public, or notified residents of public housing and the greater public about specific RAD applications for each property. These applications require community meetings, public comments and hearings at MPHA and at  City Council. The only thing MPHA has shared with the City Council (and not with residents) is the “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan.” This is a report, not an actual RAD application to dismantle each building, property by property.  https://www.dgphc.org/2018/07/11/mpha-strategic-vision-analysis/

Greg Russ and MPHA are concerned about the increasing national attention the Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition campaign is receiving. This includes a letter of solidarity from the National Public Housing Museum, which is based in Chicago. This letter is especially concerning for Greg Russ because their letter specifically calls out the Chicago Housing Authority’s failed “Plan for Transformation” as an example of the kind of dangerous privatization plan Greg Russ is now promoting here to dismantle public housing.

Greg Russ has reason to fear the Chicago connection, because as the Director of Policy at Chicago Housing Authority, (CHA) Greg Russ negotiated the Plan for Transformation. This plan dismantled, demolished, and privatized public housing, displacing tens of thousands of people in the process. Greg Russ bears personal responsibility for this tragedy. Will Minneapolis let him replicate it here?

This new Star Tribune piece is a part of MPHA’s extensive PR campaign, led by the Star Tribune’s new reporter Mukhtar Ibrahim. Mr. Ibrahim contacted DG&PHC yesterday, Thursday, July 19th, after he had an extensive face to face interview with Greg Russ.  According to Mr. Ibrahim, Greg Russ told him about MPHA’s plans to use RAD to privatize public housing, while also saying:  “What DG&PHC are saying about Greg Russ and MPHA  privatizing and displacing thousands of residents is a lie.”

As a result, DG&PHC requested to be interviewed by Mr. Ibrahim to present real evidence and MPHA’s own reports that show MPHA’s privatization and displacement plans. In other words, to be given the same opportunity and time Greg Russ received.

Mr. Ibrahim said he did not want to meet us. “He said, I have no time to meet with residents,  and this story is not about residents, it is about Russ.”

Later that day, two resident leaders called Mr. Ibrahim and requested again that he meet with residents anytime Friday, July 20th, or later to make sure the voice of residents who are at the front lines to save their homes from the destruction of Greg Russ are interviewed. Mr. Ibrahim again said:  “No, the story is about Russ.”

Even though Russ spoke about DG&PHC on record to Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Ibrahim did not want to meet us to present Greg Russ’s own privation plans. A resident leader said: ”Mukhtar you can do a fair, objective and comprehensive story on Greg Russ and his history and plans, or you can write a biased story.” In addition, when we asked Mr. Ibrahim if has he seen the actual RAD applications, Mr. Ibrahim said: “No”.

As the phone conversation progressed to trying to convince Mr. Ibrahim to do a fair story, we realized that Mr.Ibrahim  had not done the necessary research, and was only relying on Russ’s spin. Mr. Ibrahim did not know the history of 2015,  and how residents of Glendale stopped the RAD vote at City Council, and that HUD did not take the application. It is premature to do a RAD story when a RAD application has not been prepared, or presented to residents, or the City of Minneapolis. We say no to RAD applications.

The decision by the Star Tribune and their reporter Mukhtar Ibrahim to publish this piece without speaking to residents of public housing who have been fighting Greg Russ since his appointment is part of a pattern of behavior at the Star Tribune that gives priority to the voices of white elites, while ignoring and marginalizing POC, East Africans, and poor communities of Minneapolis. The Star Tribune does not care about the facts or the truth. They want to help MPHA push their plans by trying to save Greg Russ’s image.

We say, let Greg Russ’s record speak for itself. Let the tens of thousands of people who lost their homes in Chicago speak for themselves. Let the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to private hands that has taken place under his watch in Chicago, Philadelphia, and Cambridge speak for itself. For years, Greg Russ has escaped scrutiny by moving from city to city. He comes in, dismantles, and moves on to the next city to destroy public housing. But now, his record has caught up with him. Instead of owning this record, Greg Russ is now smearing public housing residents in an attempt to distract the public.

DG&PHC has nothing to hide. We report only facts, based on MPHA’s own documents. As this story gains national coverage, the local media such as Star Tribune  who push MPHA’s plans will be exposed for their complicity and racism in this scandal. The fact that the Star Tribune chose a Somali reporter, Mukhtar Ibrahim, does not change their culture of bias and systemic oppression. For the record, Star Tribune published lies about our campaign the same time last year in 2017.  After our statement here, we will see how the Star Tribune will to try to spin our truth and their hostile treatment towards our campaign, struggle and movement, as they are planning on publishing Russ’s spin piece by Sunday, July 22, 2018.

 #SaynotoRAD  #ShameonStarTribune

(A PDF version of this statement is available here.)

Dear Allies:  We need your support to submit public comments by this Sunday July 22 to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to keep public housing public, and to build more public housing in Minneapolis.

Introduction:

Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition is a grassroots campaign of residents organizing to prevent the privatization of Glendale & the rest of public housing in Minneapolis. The objective of the campaign is to ensure zero displacement, eliminate systematic gentrification, protect, and build more public housing, and to minimize the racial and economic inequities currently facing Minneapolis and Hennepin County.

Sunday, July 22, less than one week from today, is the final day the City will receive public comments on the draft Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide and provide a framework for city policy for the next twenty years. If approved in its current form, the Comprehensive Plan will do nothing to address the widening racial and income disparities, stop the privatization of public housing, or stop the displacement of low-income communities of color out and the whitening of Minneapolis. There is no mention of public housing whatsoever in the 2040 Plan. This is a deliberate housing crisis created by MPHA and Mayor Jacob Frey along with silent elected officials that support this plan.

Directions To Submitting Comments:

Unfortunately, the City of Minneapolis will only accept written comments submitted through their website. This marginalizes many communities that have no access to computers or do not speak English.  This describes the majority of public housing residents, as well as the low-income communities of color, immigrants, and refugees who live in Minneapolis. Therefore, we are asking our allies who do have access to the internet to submit the seven demands listed below to help us meet our goals.  Please follow the link below so you can submit these demands as well as your own comments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan’s website, and share this with your friends and community: https://minneapolis2040.com/comment-form/

Seven Comments to Keep Public Housing Public and to Build More Public Housing in Minneapolis.

1. Protect all public housing and build more: Create a permanent-public policy, county, city- wide ordinances, and state bills to protect all public housing units as public housing in Minneapolis and build more public housing.  This includes 42 high rises, over 740 homes, Glendale Townhomes, more public housing homes, and over 6,040 current public housing units. Prohibit the sale or lease of land to private developers/investors, or MPHA becoming a private investor, charging market prices for profit through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, or Land Use Restrictive Agreements, etc.  Adhere to the permanent protection land trust Declaration of Trust (DOT).
2. Stop the sale and lease of public housing buildings: Public housing properties are currently the first target of conversion by MPHA to private developers, and investors. This includes Glendale Townhomes, Cedar Riverside Public Housing, Elliot Twins, Horn Towers, Friendly Manor, Spring Manor,  and Rainbow Terrace to name a few. This also includes public housing buildings in Wards that predominantly house East African Somali and Oromo elders that are the first target, and all public housing properties.
   • Stop all methods of privatization by MPHA including Section 8 private ownership conversion that will allow 99.99% of the buildings be turned over to private developers. This would displace residents, who will not be relocated after any/all redevelopment to the properties.
   • Stop privatization schemes such as (so-called) “public-private partnerships” for public housing–including HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, Section 18 Demolition/Disposition, “Voluntary Conversion,” removal of public ownership requirements established by Declarations of Trust on public housing properties, etc. These schemes, which MPHA is openly planning for, would permanently transfer ownership to private banks and investors, opening new pathways to rent hikes and displacement.
3. Eliminate future displacement: Build more public housing that charges 30% of income for rent for low-income tenants, and stop the privatization of public housing to minimize displacement, homelessness, the housing crisis, social & economic crisis.  And, approve Glendale Townhomes’ application for local historical designation at Minneapolis City Council.
4. Fund public housing as a public good: Access public funds from the State, County, and City to keep public housing public. Funding for public housing (through the City Levy, County Funds, Affordable Housing fund, etc.) must be added to the City of Minneapolis, County, and State legislative agenda. Public funding to private developers that build temporarily limited-income-based housing for low-income families must be eliminated.  Instead, that funding should be used to build more public housing, as well as funding & sustaining public housing, which provides a long-term safety net, and provides social and economic stability to low-income residents of Minneapolis.
5. Hold MPHA accountable to fix & repair Glendale Townhomes and Other Properties: MPHA must eliminate its “zero budget” policy for Glendale repairs and maintenance and other properties. This is the only option to preserve Glendale and other properties as they exist now (truly public housing), and to not convert them to any private development, which would permanently displace current residents.
6. Income-based definitions of housing affordability, instead of AMI (“area median income”) based definitions: The Comprehensive Plan should establish that housing officially deemed “affordable” must guarantee rents are set according families’ actual ability to pay, at 30% of their income instead of using AMI, which is inflated statistical averages that include rich, mostly White suburbs, and currently allows developers to continually set higher and higher rents while still being considered “affordable housing.”
   Please read our full analysis on AMI Here: https://www.dgphc.org/2018/05/10/ami-housing-deeply-unaffordable-for-low-income-families-part-2/
7. City oversight of Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA): The Comprehensive Plan must re-assert the City’s statutory ability to provide public oversight and control of MPHA, and prevent MPHA from acting as a rogue agency bent on the privatization of public housing and spinning itself off into an unaccountable nonprofit that acts in the interests of private investment funding instead of the public good.

Please submit comments 1 to 7 to this link   https://minneapolis2040.com/comment-form/

An In-Depth Analysis of MPHA’s “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan”

(A downloadable PDF of this report is available here.)

On June 6, 2018 MPHA delivered their “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan 2018-2020” to the Housing Policy and Development Committee of the Minneapolis City Council. This document, which was presented to the MPHA Board of Commissioners on May 16, 2018 in spite of a lack of resident and community engagement as required by city, state, and federal rules, lays out MPHA’s plan to end public housing in Minneapolis as it has existed since 1938, using Section 8 to dismantle public housing and displace residents.

Section 8, known as Tenant Protection Vouchers (TPVs), Displaces Tenants

Before we examine the details of MPHA’s latest plans to displace residents, let’s look at how the Section 8 voucher system has failed residents of Minneapolis and across the nation.

Section 8 is a voucher system that low-income residents apply to receive rental assistance.  Recipients take this voucher, and use it to find housing on the private market.  Under the Section 8 system, renters pay 30% of their income for rent. There is a different kind of Section 8, which is called Project Based Section 8.  Under this program, for-profit and non-profit corporations get federal affordable housing funds to subsidize their rental properties for Section 8 tenants. They are called “Project Based” because renters who are living in a Project Based Section 8 apartment cannot move and retain their voucher. Now these housing corporations are moving to the AMI system, which increases rents at a high rate. Low-income families cannot afford AMI housing. Please read our AMI charts, which show why AMI housing doesn’t work for low-income housing.

Studies conducted around the country show that large percentages of Section 8 voucher recipients are forced to give up their voucher because they are unable to find housing using it.  One study in California found that up to 64% of Section 8 voucher recipients had to give up their voucher.  Even those who find housing are not safe.  Section 8 voucher recipients can be displaced if their building owner decides to sell it off to investors who raise the rent. This is exactly what happened at the Crossroads apartment complex in Richfield in 2016 where hundreds of low-income and Section 8 voucher recipients were displaced. Some of these residents are now being displaced again in Bloomington at Normandale Lake Estates as their new homes are being sold off, starting the cycle again. Normandale Lake Estates is comprised of three buildings, each with 75 units.  With an average of 3 people per unit, this means around 225 low-income tenants with Section 8 vouchers are now being pushed out. Tenants who shared their story with us are Linda Soderstrom and a Somali mother with small children. She does not want to share her name.  She, along with her children will be homeless in 30 days because she can’t find housing with her voucher.  This is because of discrimination and racism, and landlords/ developers don’t want to accept Section 8. You can read Linda’s story here.

Section 8 is a voluntary program and landlords do not have to participate if they don’t want to. This means that Section 8 voucher recipients face a lot of discrimination, especially if they are Black, Latinx, and other communities of color, immigrants, East African, or Muslim. Minneapolis recently passed an ordinance that would have made it illegal for landlords to discriminate against Section 8 recipients.  However, landlords successfully sued the city, and the ordinance was overturned.  Even though Section 8 doesn’t work for residents, politicians continue to promote it as a solution.

Section 8 is also more vulnerable than public housing.  In February of 2018, Donald Trump proposed cutting the Section 8 program by $1 Billion.  According to Diane Yentel of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, this would lead to 250,000 people losing their vouchers.  A cut to the Section 8 program would mean residents lose their assistance immediately, but this is not the case with public housing.

MPHA’s Current Plan is to Displace Through Section 8 (TPV)  

MPHA has failed to push their original plans of pushing people out of their homes and selling their buildings directly to private owners, but they did not give up on their privatization plans. Instead, they came up with a plan that doesn’t look as aggressive to people who don’t know about the effects of Section 8. They came up with these plans to say “We are not displacing people right away. ” However, here’s a chart from MPHA that shows that they are planning to transfer 99.99% ownership to private owners: (full document can be found at here.)

MPHA won’t own anything. MPHA will cease to exist as a public agency.  MPHA will create a non-profit (in the above image it’s called “MPHA Apartments LLC”) that will own 0.01% of the property and 99.99% will be owned by private developers. This is clearly not public housing anymore.

Once this happens, people will be moved out. MPHA wants this to happen piece by piece, not all at once because that would embarrass them.  MPHA’s new plan still privatizes, dismantles, and displaces public housing. It’s the same plan, but with a new face.  MPHA is making promises they cannot keep about what will happen after they sell the properties.  MPHA says they will continue to manage their properties after they sell, but in a MPHA board meeting, Greg Russ himself stated that “the investor does have the right to come in and remove the property manager if they feel we’re doing a bad job. So that’s a risk.” Even as property manager, MPHA won’t have control over who moves in because it will be catered to rich, wealthier white people. This is classic gentrification.  Furthermore, if buildings go into foreclosure, any agreements that MPHA and the city signs with these developers when they hand the buildings over to them will be voided.  There will be no legal remedy to save these buildings.

Now let’s take a look at MPHA’s plans to privatize through Section 8

Page 3, titled “Defining the Problem,” lays out MPHA’s strategy and vision for the coming years and decades.

It states: “Consistent with MPHA’s mission to provide housing for low-income families, MPHA must seek new public and private sources of funding to implement a capital plan to preserve MPHA’s low-income housing for the future.”

Here, we will show how this strategy will displace residents, while creating profits for developers.

Let’s start with the first part of this statement:

• The average income for MPHA’s working households is $20,656, while the overall average income is $14,201 and seniors on social security earn $750 a month, 9000 a year.
• All public housing residents pay 30% of their income for their rent. MPHA is pushing Area Median Income housing, which is not the same as income-based public housing. To clear 30% of one income for rent is not the same as 30% AMI for rent.
• Rents that are deemed “affordable” for “low-income families” are not affordable for the average household currently living in public housing.
• MPHA puts the phrases “Inadequate Capital Funding” and “Inadequate Operating Subsidy” in big letters.
• MPHA claims they don’t get enough money from the government to fund repairs, maintenance, and rehab or to cover their administrative costs (like salaries, office expenses, admin expenses, etc.).
• MPHA overstates their lack of capital and operating funding, without asking for money from the State or the City.
• These are all tactics to privatize public housing, which MPHA is pushing while they continue to increase their operating costs by paying huge salaries to senior staff and consultants.

MPHA’s numbers and backlog don’t add up:

• An example of operating funding is the $1 million MPHA spent on private consultants to help develop this plan.
• These consultants say that MPHA has a capital backlog of $127 Million (CSG Operational Analysis), but the graph on page 3 shows a number closer to $140 million.
• MPHA is contradicting their own consultants. MPHA is claiming that there is an additional $13 million in repairs without any proof, audit, or justification for where this number came from.
• Furthermore, through more data requests, DG&PHC discovered that the backlog they claim is not $127 Million, but $112.5 Million. But we have no concrete evidence of where  this $112.5 Million dollars came from. It is not a real number because there is no audit or justification of how MPHA came up with this number. From 2015 onward, MPHA has refused to conduct an independent financial audit on how much the real backlog is.   
• In addition, DG&PHC discovered that MPHA is sitting on a $23 Million dollar surplus that they are not spending on the capital or operating expenses “(backlog)” they claim to have.
• During MPHA’s Special Board Meeting on May 16, 2018 where Greg Russ presented the latest plan to dismantle public housing and displace residents through Section 8 (the “Strategic Vision and Capital Plan 2018-2020”), Greg Russ himself stated “We are in a good financial position with regard to our reserves.”
• MPHA ‘s contradicts itself because they claim that they are facing a financial crisis yet they are sitting on $23 million dollars they refuse to spend on capital or operating expenses.
• Emails also show that there is double billing, and misuse of tax dollars without proper accountability. This shows MPHA is not financially responsible.
• There is no audit to show how MPHA got this number. Resident leaders have requested that the State or City audit MPHA for years, but there has been no accountability because no one will do so.
• At the same time, MPHA wants to use the unverified and un-audited “backlog” public relations narrative to get more tax dollars to invite private developers to take over homes through Section 8.
• They want to privatize our homes and displace us so that private investors and corporate landlords can profit from a land grab by taking over public housing.

MPHA claims that their funding from the Federal government will never increase.

• If you look at the graph on page 3, it shows flat funding from the federal government.
• But, MPHA actually saw their funding for capital repairs go up by about 42% in 2018.
• MPHA Commissioners are actually unhappy about getting more funding because it makes it harder for them to justify their plans to privatize.
• They have been pushing a major PR campaign to claim that they don’t have enough money to maintain their public housing.
• In reality, MPHA has plenty of money. They have been successfully managing public housing for decades.  HUD has even named them one of their high performing agencies and their inspections receive 98 out of 100 from HUD.
• When Greg Russ told the Board of Commissioners on a May 16^th, 2018 special meeting that MPHA would never get increased funding from the Federal government, Commissioner Rosenbaum replied:

“In fact, we increased our amounts of money by a fairly considerable amount.  Well beyond anything we had imagined that we might get.  We are in a very difficult place to change, to make a full strategic pivot based on assumptions which so far have not materialized.”

He goes on:

“Our income stream increased significantly and all of a sudden we have extra money. That’s a very hard place for us to make strategic decisions around.”

• This statement shows that MPHA’s narrative that they don’t have money to keep public housing public is not working.
• If MPHA were short on funds they could approach city or state for funding, but they haven’t.

On page 5, both the “Pilot Programs and Test Initiatives” and “Rehabilitation and Construction” strategies contain references to demolition of public housing, and the construction of new buildings that will not be public housing. These buildings will be privatized through the Section 8 program as we have explained above.

On Page 6, MPHA talks about “resident input at every step,” which is the opposite of what MPHA has done.

• MPHA has not brought this plan to residents, and instead brought it straight to the city without resident input.
• This violates HUD policy, as well as city, state, and federal rules and laws about public participation.
• They talk about resident input from design to implementation, but this has never happened.
• In addition, they have violated their own guiding principles, which they also passed without resident input or approval.
• In the chart, they say they are going to provide resident input for a “Relocation Rights Contract,” “Land Use Restriction Agreement,” “Redevelopment Choices in Support of the Mission” and “resident and legal services engaged in development of documents.” Each of these pieces will displace residents.
• “Relocation Rights Contract” means that residents will be displaced.
• “Land Use Restriction Agreement” means the removal of Declarations of Trust “DOT” that keeps public housing public and prohibits from being privatized. MPHA already asked HUD permission to waive DOT if the city government, and residents approve, but the decision from HUD is still pending.
• “Redevelopment Choices in Support of the Mission” means privatizing public housing through Section 8.
• MPHA has failed to explain what “Resident and Legal Services Engaged in Development of Documents” means. It shows that they plan on using MPHA lawyers to make people sign documents that will displace them as they have done in the past.  Residents will not have access to independent legal advice that will represent them because MPHA knows that residents cannot afford this.
• This is how the system takes advantage of poor people, people who don’t speak English, and people who don’t have the legal expertise to understand MPHA documents.

MPHA also talks about “Property Plans” which means that MPHA has individual property plans, which they are not sharing with residents. Some residents are being told they have to move out, and there is no transparency about their plans.

Pages 5-10, shows that MPHA is planning on privatizing all public housing. They even show the timeline.

• They will start with a pilot project at Elliot Twins and some scattered sites first, beginning in 2018-2019.
• Starting in 2020-2024 they will begin large scale construction.
• By 2025-2029 there will be full scale demolition and construction of new homes, displacing thousands of people.

DG&PHC has shown documentation of these plans to Council Member Abdi Warsame and Mayor Jacob Frey.  But, they are silent and have not passed the resolution and ordinance they promised during the 2017 city elections which would make sure public housing stays public by stopping all types and methods of MPHA’s privatization plans.

Page 14, makes it very clear that MPHA is privatizing and will be displacing residents. They plan on using RAD, which is the same privatization scheme that residents in Glendale rejected in 2015.

• “Subsidy/Funding Conversion” means that they plan to use RAD or another scheme to change the ownership of public housing to private hands.
• “Transfer of Properties” means that MPHA will no longer own public housing. They will create a separate non-profit that will own 0.01% of the property.
• “City Tax Levy” is $95 million dollars in funding that MPHA plans to give to developers who will take over the buildings, instead of using that money to maintain public housing.
• “Private Loans” are regular funding from banks, which will also give banks control over properties if the new private owners fail to make payments or if the properties are foreclosed. Public housing agencies don’t apply for loans because all their funds are tax dollars from HUD, along with local city and state funds.

MPHA says that “Transfering Properties” triggers “Tenant Protection Vouchers.” But TPV’s are just Section 8 vouchers. These will not work for residents. They claim they will protect affordability with Land Use Restriction Agreements, but these will replace Declarations of Trust (DOT), which are the strongest protection to keep public housing public and prevent displacement.

Page 15 – 16, MPHA is lying about the actual rent they are collecting. They are collecting more than they say they are collecting. This chart is  propaganda. They even admit this when they say that it is “Preliminary Estimation for Illustrative Purposes” in red. This means these numbers are fictional.  When you add up these “estimations” and compare them to MPHA’s own data, they don’t add up.  MPHA is underestimating rent in order to push their argument. In meetings with Glendale residents in 2015, MPHA project manager Dean Carlson stated that 89% of the rent collected from Glendale goes towards repairs and maintenance for a larger capital pool for other properties.

Page 17,  clearly shows that MPHA plans to privatize. They plan to “convert the public housing platform to a project-based Section 8 platform.” Project-Based Section 8 housing is not publicly owned. Let us look carefully what MPHA is really saying on page 17.  MPHA says:

• “HUD Capital Grants Will not Meet their Rehab Needs”
  This is false. HUD increased MPHA’s capital funding by 42% in 2018.
• “Public housing funding method does not produce cash flow to borrow or attract Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) investors.”
  All this says is that public housing is not marketable to private developers. Developers will displace thousands of residents once the conversion takes place.
• “Strategy: Convert the public housing platform to a project-based Section 8 platform.”
  It is very clear under their strategy that they want to take public housing and convert it to project-based Section 8 housing where 99.99% will be owned by private developers, who will displace people.
• “Why convert: Section 8 platform provides higher HUD subsidy and a more reliable revenue stream.”
  This is a false statement. There is no evidence from HUD or anyone else that Section 8 funding is more reliable than public housing funding because Section 8 is under the hands of developers and private landlords who only volunteer to rent to Section 8 tenants.
• “Higher revenue stream permits borrowing and attracting LIHTC investment.”
  Again, all this is saying is that they have to convert to Section 8 in order to market to private developers.
• “Why now: In March, 2018, HUD published an updated Demolition/Disposition Notice that provides improved opportunities to convert.”
  Translation: Because Carson and Trump have made it easier for MPHA to do it. But the city and community still must approve these plans.
• “Current funding is favorable for RAD conversions.”
  We already showed in 2015 when residents fought against RAD conversion in Glendale that RAD would displace residents. RAD conversion would give the new owner the mechanism to decide how many units would still be Section 8, which is usually a small number compared to high end market rate apartments. Private owners have the final say. RAD is the tool that will displace these residents.
• “How: Through a conversion process that disposes of the public housing unit to an MPHA controlled non-profit and replaces it with a project-based voucher.”
  This nonprofit will own 0.01% of the building. MPHA will no longer be a public agency. The remaining 99.99% will be privately owned by developers, who will displace residents to make more money. 

MPHA keeps saying that DG&PHC is misinforming people. How are we misleading people when we just share their documents that clearly show they are dismantling public housing and displacing residents by thousands?

On page 18, MPHA says “After any financial transfers of properties, MPHA would continue to manage the properties as “public housing” for its residents” (the quotation marks around “public housing” are from MPHA’s own plan.  These quotation marks are not from DG&PHC). MPHA was forced to put the words “public housing” in quotation marks because they know that a “financial transfer” to private investors would mean that public housing is no longer publicly owned, and therefore is not public housing.  On this page, MPHA also shows a chart of how they would be dismantling public housing.

• MPHA says that they will undergo a “Financial transfers of properties.” This means that they will sell the public housing buildings to private investors.
• This transfer will allow MPHA to sell 99.99% ownership stakes of publicly owned housing to private owners.
• The 0.01% that remains will be “transferred” to a nonprofit that will be controlled by corporate developers (see chart on page 2).
• This means MPHA will cease to exist as a public agency. They will continue to use the “MPHA” name for this new nonprofit, but it will no longer be a public agency and will not be subject to the same levels of public accountability, transparency, and accessibility as MPHA.
• The City of Minneapolis and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development will no longer have any control over MPHA.

On the chart on pg. 18, MPHA has divided the properties into categories “A” through “D” to show their different strategies to privatize. The chart shows that residents at all properties will receive “Tenant Protection Vouchers” (TPVs). TPVs are just Section 8 vouchers.

• Group A are the scattered sites.
  • “Scattered Sites” are single-family homes. They are in almost every ward in the city.
  • MPHA wants to convert these to fourplexes or bigger.
  • They are the only properties that they say won’t receive tax credits, which seems to indicate they want to displace current residents and sell them off through a process called “disposition.”

• Group B is Glendale Townhomes & Elliot Twins.
  • Elliot Twins are two buildings, each with 87 units. They are in Ward 6, Abdi Warsame’s ward.
  • Glendale has 184 units, and is in Ward 2, Cam Gordon’s ward.
  • MPHA wants to use Section 8 to displace residents and sell these properties to investors who will own 99.99% through Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
• Group C are a specific group of midrise buildings
  • 1710 Plymouth is in Ward 5, Jeremiah Ellison’s ward.
  • 809 Spring St & 1900 3rd St are in Ward 3, Steve Fletcher’s ward.
• Group D are all 42 highrises
  • These buildings are spread all across the city.
  • This will displace thousands of residents.

On Page 19, MPHA again uses made up numbers to push their agenda. It is not worth responding to numbers that aren’t real.

Conclusion

This plan is just a nice cover-up for privatization and displacement.  MPHA was embarrassed when residents at Glendale and Elliott Twins exposed in 2017 that MPHA’s displacement plans continues to spread to other highrises,  and MPHA is  actually planning to displace residents as stated from their own documents and annual reports.  As a result, Greg Russ, Executive Director began lobbying the City of Minneapolis to come up with new plans that does not reveal all of the facts of their disastrous plan. Greg Russ began developing a close relationship with Mayor  Jacob Frey to gentrify this city and displace public housing residents under another cover. This is the same plan with a different name Glendale residents rejected in 2015, but now they want to push it to the whole city.  MPHA uses fake numbers, false language, and their well funded PR team to promote their dismantling and displacing  agenda for public housing as a good plan, which will displace thousands  public housing residents in the coming years, and deepen the homelessness and the housing crisis in this city.

On May 24, Jacob Frey used his first “State of the City” address to announce a new program called “Stable Homes Stable Schools.”  A partnership between the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA), and Minneapolis Public Schools, the program claims to address the homelessness and displacement crisis currently plaguing Minneapolis broadly, and Minneapolis Public Schools in particular. While announcing the program, Mayor Frey highlighted that 3,500 students (8.5% of MPS’ student body) are currently experiencing homelessness.  While these disturbing numbers do confirm that there is a crisis due to a lack of income-based affordable and public housing in the city, the “Stable Homes Stable Schools” initiative is emblematic of the Mayor’s agenda to accelerate the already rapid gentrification of Minneapolis while offering token gestures for low-income and minority residents designed to deflect criticism rather than offer real solutions.

Let’s look at 3 major failures in the Mayor’s “Stable Homes Stable Schools” initiative:

1.  It will not reach most students in need.

While the Mayor specifically brought up the fact that 3,500 students are currently experiencing homelessness, his speech also stated that the Stable Homes Stable Schools initiative will only reach “up to” 320 families, or 648 students from pre-k to 8th grade. Leaving aside the disturbing “up to” modifier (which implies the number reached could be far lower) and the exclusion of high school students from the program, the maximum number of students reached by this initiative will be less than 19% of the total number of students experiencing homelessness.  This is unacceptable.  We cannot celebrate any program that excludes over 80% of an affected population.

2.  It relies on Housing Choice Vouchers (aka Section 8), which do not work.

Although the Mayor touted that this program goes directly to families and not to developers (in contrast with the vast majority of his “affordable housing” initiatives which take the form of subsidies and handouts for landlords and developers), the form this support will take are housing choice vouchers (aka Section 8 Vouchers), provided by the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA). In theory, Housing Choice Vouchers allow holders to find housing wherever they want, paying 30% of their income.  In reality, current voucher holders are unable to find housing because landlords in Minneapolis discriminate and do not rent to Section 8 voucher holders, who are majority low-income, Black or Black Muslim, and Hispanic families.  Making this problem worse, each family who receives a voucher has only 90 days to find housing with the voucher.  If they can’t find housing within that time frame, the voucher  expires, meaning they must forfeit their voucher. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that Section 8 voucher recipients have a very difficult time finding housing using their voucher.  A 2016 article about Section 8 vouchers in California found “failure rates” (meaning the number of voucher recipients who failed to find housing within the designated time period, thus losing their voucher) ranging from 22% to 64%, and many articles and studies around the country mirror these results.

Locally, many families are forced to look to the suburbs to find housing with their vouchers.  But even when these families move to the suburbs, they will be displaced again by new investors who will upscale the buildings, and remove Section 8 tenants and all low-income renters in that building.  This is classic gentrification.  In short, even the minority of homeless families enrolled in Minneapolis Public Schools who are able to participate in this initiative will find it difficult if not impossible to find housing with their voucher. Those that do find housing will likely find it only in far flung suburbs and exurbs, far away from their schools and communities. This disrupts the life of students. A 2001 academic paper found that frequent moves “reduces children’s academic functioning, and may negatively affect other aspects of child well-being.” To relocate MPS students to suburbs cannot be viewed as an acceptable solution to the homelessness crisis.

A final note: the Section 8 non-discrimination ordinances recently passed by the City of Minneapolis have been misunderstood, with many people believing that there is now a mandate that all landlords must accept Section 8 vouchers. But because the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is a voluntary federal program, landlords cannot be forced to accept these vouchers. In order to avoid accepting the vouchers from Section 8 families, landlords need only raise rents by 15 or 20 dollars over the Section 8 limit for each family size. Even if their rents do fall under the Section 8 limit, landlords can still reject Section 8 applicants as long as they do not explicitly state they are doing so because of their Section 8 voucher.

3.  The Stable Homes Stable Schools Initiative does nothing to address the structural causes of the homelessness crisis.  

The homelessness crisis did not emerge in a vacuum. Minneapolis has seen an incredible volume of luxury developments over the past few years, a trend that appears poised to continue apace. This rapid gentrification is causing a parallel rent increase, while wages stagnate or decline.  At community meeting hosted by League of Women Voters  on May 15th, 2018 about Minneapolis’ Comprehensive Plan called “Minneapolis 2040”, City staff clearly stated that the Black income dropped by 40% in Minneapolis from 2000 to 2018. Yet Mayor Frey and City Planners who drafted this plan have absolutely no plan to combat this economic and housing crisis facing communities color due to his strong support among real estate developers.  According to MinnPost, during the 2017 election Mayor Frey raised more money from developers than any other candidate, raising more than 4 times as much as the next closest candidate (former Mayor Betsy Hodges).  Mayor Frey cannot risk alienating this core constituency, which is why he has been such a forceful proponent of “Area Median Income” (AMI) housing. This approach, pushed by developers, sees the city offer heavy subsidies to developers who build a small fraction of units at a level deemed affordable to individuals earning a certain percentage of the Area Median Income. These units are deceptively labeled “affordable” even though they are unaffordable for low-income and minority communities.  A recent study by CURA confirmed what many have been saying for years: AMI housing is unaffordable for minority and low-income communities.  By pushing policies like AMI housing and the Stable Homes Stable Schools initiative, Mayor Frey is offering band-aid solutions that do absolutely nothing to address the root problem: gentrification and displacement due to racism, classism, and profit from public land.

Mayor Frey and his developer friends want to accelerate the gentrification of Minneapolis.  It is not surprising then that in the same speech where he highlighted the need to “preserve existing affordable housing” the Mayor announced a new initiative in partnership with MPHA, who is currently undergoing a major effort to privatize the entire public housing stock in Minneapolis. Rather than hold MPHA accountable for their clandestine effort to sell off the largest body of truly affordable – i.e. income based – public housing in Minneapolis, Mayor Frey has identified the agency as an ally in his quest to upzone and gentrify Minneapolis. Aware that they are both losing the battle of public perception, the Mayor and MPHA have joined forces to announce this new initiative in order to distract the public from their disastrous policies and plans. The people of Minneapolis deserve more than lip service.  We demand real affordable income-based and public housing now!

While the Mayor distracts us with his new alliance with both MPHA and developers, he fails to serve the largest and the most vulnerable population, including low wage workers essential to any thriving city. Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition proposes instead a city in which low-income residents are able to stay in their chosen community in high quality, stable housing that charges only 30% of the renter’s income, like public housing does, and to build more public housing.

Citations:

To learn more about why AMI housing doesn’t work, see our previous pieces here and here .

To learn more about CURA’s research, and what it means for low-income communities, see our blog post.

Mayor Jacob Frey’s 2018 State of the City Address.

Article on Section 8 vouchers in California.

2001 paper on the impact of frequent moves on academic performance.

CURA study on gentrification.

MinnPost article about campaign contributions.

https://minneapolis2040.com/