Laserfiche WebLink
15 <br /> <br />Finally, Minn. Stat. § 469.030 requires that an HRA must, before approving a <br />redevelopment plan, be satisfied that families to be displaced will be temporarily relocated and <br />that there is sufficient decent affordable housing for them to relocate to. <br /> <br />Gaps in Coverage of Relocation Requirements <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, there may be no relocation requirements in connection with most locally <br />funded government projects. The federal URA covers persons displaced as a direct result of <br />acquisition, demolition, or rehabilitation of their homes by a federally assisted project.41 The <br />state URA is more limited. It applies only when an agency with eminent domain powers <br />acquires or demolishes a property.42 Unlike the federal statute, it requires the displacing activity <br />to be “undertaken” by a public body. It does not generally apply when people are displaced by <br />private actors even though their projects include public financing. One case decided under the <br />state URA expanded relocation protections somewhat. The court in In Re Wren, 699 N.W.2d <br />758 (Minn. 2005), held the Richfield HRA responsible for URA protections for an owner whose <br />home was acquired by a private developer. The Court held that the test for whether a public <br />body had “undertaken” activities causing displacement was whether activities of the public body <br />and the developers were sufficiently “intertwined.” The court held they were in that case <br />because the HRA had planned and initiated the redevelopment project, selected and entered into <br />a contract with the developer requiring the developer to pursue acquisitions in the area, and <br />permitting the developer to request HRA use of eminent domain to acquire holdouts. It’s unclear <br />the extent to which this “intertwined” test might extend to other publicly planned and subsidized <br />projects. It would seem that the “but for” test required for approval of tax increment projects <br />demonstrates that the project and the public financing are “intertwined” in that it requires a <br />finding that the development would not happen without the financing. <br /> <br />The City Development District statute described above is the only one which applies <br />URA requirements to projects carried out by private actors with public funding.43 That leaves a <br />huge gap in coverage, as the typical tax increment project, for instance, provides funding for <br />acquisition and displacement, but does not require any relocation provisions. In the recent <br />“Residence at Discovery Square” project in Rochester, for instance, low income residents were <br />displaced for a tax increment-funded development with no relocation assistance at all, even <br />though the project was going to generate several million in increment beyond what was needed <br />by the developer. <br /> <br />Another gap results from city code enforcement-related efforts. The Minneapolis <br />licensing ordinance, for instance, results in all of an owner’ licenses being revoked if two are <br />revoked for cause.44 The ordinance requires that residents be displaced when a license is <br />revoked. In at least two recent cases, that has meant large numbers of tenants, living in housing <br />that does not otherwise require displacement based on health and safety concerns, being <br /> <br />41 49 C.F.R. § 24.2, definition of displaced person. <br />42 MINN. STAT. § 117.50; programs of area wide code enforcement are also covered, but that term <br />referred to an obsolete HUD program; it’s not clear whether it still has meaning. <br />43 MINN. STAT. §§ 469.126 subdiv. 1, 469.133. <br />44 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 244.1910(13)(a).