Laserfiche WebLink
20 <br /> <br />funding decisions: is the funder getting as much as is feasible to further public interests in <br />exchange for funding? Shouldn’t restrictions be for 30 years rather than 15 years, for example? <br />New restrictions should also include not only a commitment to accept Section 8, which <br />necessarily requires keeping rents within Section 8 limits, but also affirmative marketing to <br />Section 8 and public housing waitlists, such as Minneapolis does.58 Hennepin County requires a <br />30 year commitment for housing projects it provides, and awards additional points in its <br />competitive scoring for projects committing to longer than 30 years. <br /> <br />Minneapolis has one of the more detailed policies in this area. 59 Affordable housing <br />requirements apply to projects developed on property purchased from the city or with city <br />financial assistance (including TIF, land write-downs, and bond issuance). Owners must accept <br />Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, but also HOME tenant based assistance and Group <br />Residential Housing. The demolition or removal of SRO housing for covered projects is <br />generally prohibited.60 <br /> <br />One of the most challenging displacement problems arises when large multifamily <br />complexes decide to no longer accept Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. Local Section 8 <br />programs will typically attempt to engage owners to reconsider these decisions but are limited by <br />a lack of tools to address the problem. Cities and counties should consider a combination of <br />carrots and sticks to address this issue. A city, for example, could offer an owner an incentive <br />package such as a 4d tax break or tax abatement, with perhaps funds to write down rents on a <br />share of the units for a period of time, in exchange for an ongoing commitment to take Section 8. <br />Cities should also consider adopting ordinances protecting against owners discriminating against <br />Section 8 voucher-holders, such as was recently adopted in Minneapolis.61 <br /> <br /> <br />PROTECTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS <br /> <br />58 Minneapolis’ Unified Housing Policy also provides for a penalty on future LIHTC <br />applications if Section 8 tenants are displaced or the owner violates CPED policies. The policy <br />also commits the City staff to investigating LIHTC developments where Section 8 voucher- <br />holders are significantly underrepresented. <br />59 Amended and Restated Unified Housing Policy of the City of Minneapolis (12-15-17). <br />60 The Unified Housing Policy also establishes priorities for preservation : first, federally subsidized rental housing; <br />second, LIHTC or locally assisted housing reaching the end of the affordability period, and NOAH housing at risk of <br />experiencing significant rent increases. Section 5. <br />61 The Minneapolis ordinance has been challenged in the Fletcher case where the trial court <br />recently enjoined the ordinance on the grounds it violated equal protection and substantive due <br />process. The Court found that because violating the ordinance unfairly painted the housing <br />providers as “unfair discriminators”, the City’s ordinance was arbitrary and violated the <br />Constitution. The Court also found that the exemption for owner occupied duplexes was not <br />rationally related to a genuine distinction relevant to the purpose of the law. The City is planning <br />to appeal the decision. While the appeal process if unfolding, cities should look closely at the <br />trial court’s reasoning, which explicitly suggests there may be ways to structure this protection <br />so it does not run afoul of what the court thought was the defect in the Minneapolis ordinance. <br />One suggestion proposed by the Court was to put a requirement to accept vouchers into the city’s <br />licensing ordinance.