MLKHDA Votes to End Homeless Work
The Political Buzz Blog is reporting that the Martin Luther King Housing Development Association will be ending its work with the homeless. It currently runs the City’s largest homeless shelter. The decision was affected by the recent recommendations to the City Council that MLKHDA not receive community block grants funds, but ultimately, the decision was to refocus on its core mission of developing housing for at-risk and low-income individuals.
MLKHDA is exploring the possibility of another agency taking over the shelter.
Link to Political Buzz Blog
Filed under: Hilltop, Developments, MLKHDA
5 comments
C Concerned Citizen May 2, 2008
Not shocked. MLKHDA has been granted an approximate $5mm grant by the State to develop a project at 11th and MLK. This project has been described, by a MLKHDA representative, at a meeting of the UTBA, in public, as a mixed use project, mixing housing, office, and retail. Specifically, it was described as market rate housing, market rate office, and market rate retail. None of that is for “low income” or “at risk” individuals.
It seems that MLKHDA has lost its vision. It seems to be trying to play the role of a private developer, but with the advantage of not having to pay takes and with the use of substantial public monies. This squeezes out private developers who actually know what the devil they are doing.
It seems that there are individual consultants working for MLKHDA who are making money, subsidized money, our money, off of MLKHDA. It seems there are employees who are abandoning the mission of MLKHDA, but drawing a very healthy salary in the process.
MLKHDA’s properties are in terrible shape – mold problems, leaks, drugs being sold on the premises, prostitution, trash and maintenance issues. The properties are generally a blight in their neighborhoods. The properties are fully leveraged with debt, to fund the aforementioned expenses, which cuts into MLKHDA’s ability to continue it’s mission of supplying housing to low income and at risk individuals.
I wonder if anyone has done an audit of MLKHDA lately? Perhaps those well-paid consultants are able to keep the auditors at bay.
O Old Timer May 3, 2008
CC,
Im glad you said it before I did. To expand on the blight issue, I am increasingly conerned that HDA’s past projects homeowners associations have been disbanded leaving particullary the townhomes on 23rd in Hilltop subject to exactly what your sayin. Garbage everywhere front and back. Lanscaping not being touched since they where built and a signifigant number now being bank owned. I wonder if the city ever got it’s 20k down payment assistance money back on any of these. My feeing is this is our (public) agency and it may time for a vote of no confidence from its owners (us). For heavens sake Catholic Community Services (no pun intended) has to manage the Alberta Canada Building for them.
B bob May 3, 2008
In theory, it’s the responsibility of a non-profit’s board to provide guidance and oversight. One has to wonder how effective MLKHDA’s board really is – if one actually exists other than on paper.
The advantage of being a non-profit developer is that you can behave as a for-profit developer but with the added bonus of having access to public funds.
In general, there is very little oversight of non-profits. They are free to do as they please. The state doesn’t do anything. The Feds don’t do anything. The city can hold back funding, but that’s about it. This being said, an IRS audit could be interesting.
J J. Cote May 5, 2008
I see a great deal of criticism here, but no answers. If they are not doing the job that you feel should be done, then what do you suggest be done to fix it. The MLKHDA is providing housing for individuals that otherwise may be on the streets. If you could do a better job of it, then do so. We all may be better off with the benefit of your expertise.
Maybe their ideas of providing some housing and office space at market rate is their way of trying to get some properties that make a return for the investment of YOUR dollars. Much like the ideas recently shared by Metro Parks. They are trying to make the organisation less dependent upon the public for solvency. Or maybe some developers are afraid of the potential competition. I don’t know.
Whatever the case may be, you all make some pretty good arguments. How about getting involved with the organization and sharing your ideas with them. If they are really in that great a need of oversight and direction, maybe yours will be welcomed.
C Concerned Citizen May 5, 2008
Dear J. Cote,
With all due respect…
The idea of engaging in for-profit development to fund not-for-profit services is absurd. It goes against the central logic of why not-for-profit status was created in the first place.
The IRS grants not-for-profit status to corporate entities that specifically are filling a void left by the private market – that’s the whole idea. Presumably, these activities are inherently un-profitable. That’s also why not-for-profit corporations have no shareholders – presumably, there will be no profit to share.
Not-for-profits that engage in for-profit activities must (or at least are supposed to) segregate out those activities and pay taxes on them. And, personally, I don’t want MLKHDA trying to make a return on my tax dollar.
Yes, the for-profit sector fears not-for-profits entering their turf, because they have a decided advantage. I wonder how Prium would feel today if it could be granted $5 million in good cold cash for its development at 6th and South J Street? After all, it’s only three or four blocks away from MLKHDA’s proposed project that is getting a similar sum from the State. Plus, not-for-profits don’t have to pay any federal income taxes. Plus, they have reduced property taxes.
Does that seem “fair”? Would you like that if you were a private developer?
It is possible to run a not-for-profit low income housing program well. Look at Catholic Community Services’ properties – they are stellar: clean, good tenants, well maintained, etc. Check out the lovely brick property on the southwest corner of S. 8th & J, then compare it to MLKHDA’s property at the southwest corner of S. 7th & I. Or any of them, for that matter.
I’ve talked to people living in MLKHDA’s properties, and all the ones I’ve spoken to want to get out ASAP because of the poor conditions. Personally, I’d like my tax dollars to go to organizations that use it well.
As for your last point, I am certain (and I use that word literally, not figuratively) that the last thing MLKHDA wants is someone like me on the board.