Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br /> <br />threatened with displacement. The City has regularly spent CDBG funds on these “problem <br />properties,” but HUD has gone back and forth over the decades on whether Section 104(d) <br />requires relocation caused by code enforcement-related activity. Such ordinances would appear <br />to conflict with the CDBG requirement that displacement by CDBG-funded activities be <br />minimized and certainly raise serious fair housing issues.45 <br /> <br />Local Relocation Policies Should Be Adopted <br /> <br />Minneapolis’ Relocation Policy may be as useful as any in the Metro area but even it falls <br />short of providing URA protections. It calls for replacement housing payments, at least partially <br />funded by the developer, of 24 months equal times the difference between the old rent and the <br />lesser of the new rent or rent for comparable housing. This is significantly short of the 42 <br />months URA rent, especially when URA payments are regularly increased based on the “last <br />resort” provision. <br />If public funds are used to displace low income households, then the City should require <br />URA levels of protection, otherwise the City’s activity adds to the huge number of low income <br />households in the metro area paying far more than they can afford for housing. <br /> <br />Minimizing Displacement when No Public Funds Are Involved <br /> <br />How can cities influence private development causing displacement where no public <br />funds have been provided? There are at least three ways this could happen. First, cities could <br />call for displacement prevention commitments when developers seek land use approvals from <br />cities. These opportunities typically are limited to new construction/redevelopment, however, <br />and may less often apply to the kind of NOAH housing most at risk currently. Note, however, <br />that new owners do sometimes need to seek additional land use or regulatory approvals (e.g., <br />adding a swimming pool), and cities should be prepared to take advantage of the leverage this <br />provides. Secondly, public officials should not underestimate informal intervention with respect <br />to particular owners or properties. The quick action by Richfield city councilmembers with <br />respect to Seasons Park (described above) in mobilizing support for a preservation acquisition <br />was very effective. Finally, there are multiple examples from around the country where cities <br />have exercised their traditional police powers to regulate displacement activities. <br /> <br />In addition to the range of policies requiring rights of purchase/advance notice of sale, <br />cities have provided for relocation benefits for displaced residents and placed temporary limits <br />on excessive rent increases or evictions without cause, designed to soften the blow when <br />buildings get converted or upscaled. As described above, Chicago’s SRO ordinance is designed <br />to encourage preservation acquisitions, but failing that, relocation benefits are provided.46 <br />Seattle entitles tenants to 90 days notice in the event of displacement caused by demolition, <br />change of use, substantial rehabilitation, or removal of a use restriction (but apparently not the <br /> <br />45 Providing relocation assistance to tenants displaced by code enforcement is not the only solution to the <br />problem. The City of Brooklyn Park’s procedure for suspending rental licenses for failure to maintain the property <br />allows current tenants to remain in place but bars the landlord from re-renting vacant units until the license is <br />restored. <br />46 CHI., ILL., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 5-15-010 to 5-15-100.