On Tuesday night the Oshkosh Common Council will be asked approve a resolution to adopt the "Near East Neighborhood Plan." The Council should lay over this resolution until they and the public at-large gain a much clearer understanding of exactly what is being proposed. Not only does the plan seem too eager to begin tearing down homes as a solution to deferred maintenance and blight issues, but it also lacks clarity about the role of police contacts in the determination of how a neighborhood is targeted by the Planning Department. I have heard that residents of the area have contacted the American Civil Liberties Union to inquire about the legalities of this. The Common Council should delay a vote on the plan until those residents have a chance to get their questions answered.
Also on Saturday many residents of Oshkosh received an anonymous postcard in the mail from someone clearly not supportive of the plan. On the card are ten reasons given to tear down homes that the person writing the card heard given at the March 7th Plan Commission meeting. The writer of the card concludes that the plan represents at attempt to "Tear down economical housing while at the same time complain that there is not enough economical housing for low income."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Has anyone heard an estimated price tag for this endeavor? I am about half way through the material that was sent to me and haven't seen a solid amount yet. I would imagine a venture like this will be expensive.
K Monte
So your suggestion is what Mr. Monte? Do nothing? I don't understand what it is you really want. You talk about how you're for development but all you ever mention when new projects come up is how much money it will cost. You are beginning to sound like a busted record.
Ok, how much do you know about the 'Near East' project? Did you know that at least 2 of the properties that are up for aquisition are condemned? I think that before we go jumping into a lake, we should see how deep the water is. The two properties in the 600 block of Jefferson are in forclosure and will be auctioned on April 4th. There is not a limit for this expenditure so just how much are we (Oshkosh) going to bid on these properties? And once we own them, they come off the tax rolls for an undetermined amount of time while we spend another $10k-20k on demolition of said property. Then we will sell it to a developer at a fraction of the price. What a deal.
I know what you are saying, 'but it is only block grant money, not taxpayer money'. So what. Don't you think that money would be better spent in another way to spruce up the area without bailing out an owner who should be taking care of the property or tearing down the house themselves?
I was told by a good source that there is an ordinance in place for just such a property. It is designed to make the property owner get the home up to code or tear it down themselves. If this is true, we are wasting grant money on property that should be taken care of by the owners in the first place. And if the owners can't afford it, let someone else buy it at auction and take care of the changes without the grant.
Make no mistake, I have said this before, I am all for development and progress. I just want to spend the money wisely and not just waste it. I want the best bang for the buck and sooner or later this grant money will run out. What then?
I will ask again, Does anyone know how much this is going to cost? The council is being asked to approve aquisition of 6 properties with an undetermined dollar amount. Just how much are we going to spend?
Thanks for reading, Have a nice evening.
K Monte
Kent,
I hope the sitting Council has been doing as much homework as you have on this topic. I could not help but notice that in the 4 articles the Oshkosh Northwestern has done on the Near East plan, NOT ONCE is a member of the council quoted. Nor are there quotes from the mayor or the city manager. On something of this magnitude, shouldn't there have been some leadership shown from elected officials and the manager?
Since the planning department has targeted 4 neighborhoods for rehabilitation, it is vital that we get it right the first time. The Near East folks shouldn't be the guinea pigs for a plan that hardly seemed to inspire confidence at the last Plan Commission meeting, just like the city as a whole should not be a guinea pig for Five Rivers.
Tony,
I took the opportunity to drive by the properties in question this afternoon and one of them is a cute little 2 bedroom that certainly doesn't look too bad. I think it would and could make someone a very quaint little starter home. I don't think it should be ripped down just because we want to build a bunch of new houses and we have money to spend.
Here is another question that needs to be asked, how are any new houses going to be built on lots that are less than 50 feet wide? These are the only types of homes that will fit. Is the planning commision going to combine lots? If so, what kind of affordable housing will be available to the lower income families that are living in that neighborhood now? We are looking to displace a whole bunch of people and tell them how we think they should live. I don't want to be labeled with that. Fix it up, ok. But tear it down and start over, not for me.
K Monte
I guess I would be curious if either Kent or Tony attended any of the public information sessions regarding this proposal, such as the one held at the Library in February that would have answered most of the questions you have posed here. It was announced and publicised by both the Northwestern, the City and numerous other community groups.
Kent, what would your plan to spend the block grant money in more wise ways be? You have said that you are for this type of project, but rail against almost every aspect of city-assisted redevelopment once they are announced. What would your plan for the Near East Neighborhood be? On a larger scale, what is your level of commitment to sustain the older neighborhoods of Oshkosh, recognizing that an older neighborhood has inherent challenges often not able to be met by certain property owners, but that older neighborhoods are vital to the social and cultural fabric of the city, and therefore in many cases deserve and require the investment of the city? Sorry for the long question, but hopefully it illicits a thoughtful answer.
I do NOT want a city councilor who will say "I was told by a good source." Tony, you should be all over that if you favor disclosure.
Boy, Kent Monte has become the whipping boy for all of you anonymous bloggers! Give the guy a break. He has the guts to run for election, then is the only candidate that puts himself out there in public, and is constantly harassed for what seem to be nuances. Like him or not, give him some credit for giving his positions. I don't see any other candidate doing what he is doing on the blogs or otherwise. He also seems to have the desire to find out the informatin when he doesnt have it! I give him credit for having patience for the anonymous masses, and their nit-picking! He is starting to garner my support even though I didnt vote for him in the primary!
Jack Straw
Anon 9:01,
You say that I don't give ideas of how the money should be spent. How about using that money to improve the common areas of the neighborhood? This is a good way to improve the sidewalks, streets, curb/gutter, plant trees, etc. That will all have to be done too, so why spend that grant money bailing out the property owners that can't/don't spend money on the property they own. Should every property owner go to the city for assistance if they can't afford to rebuild a porch, put siding on, replace a roof, etc?
The city should NOT be in the real estate business. Let the property owners finance the improvements themselves or sell to someone who will. You can't tell me that they can't afford it. If they can't, what did they do with the rent that they collected when there was tenants?
As for answering questions, they couldn't have possibly answered the questions that I have because noone knows how much the property is going to sell for at auction. The public information sessions that were held were similar to the workshop held for the council 2 weeks ago that I did attend. I wasn't able to attend the meeting last week because of childcare issues and other engagements. I was given the information discussed during that meeting in the council packet from City Hall. I can assure you that I have quite a bit of information on this issue. What has never been stated is cost. There are many terms used such as 'block grant funds are authorized for qualified owners'. Well, how many do you think will have a low enough income to 'qualify'? That is why they want the city to buy it, they don't want to pay for it themselves. Look at it from that angle and maybe you will see that this may not be the best approach to this project.
Anon 11:13,
My 'good source' chooses not to be identified. Since you choose to remain anonymous, so will they. If you want to know who it is, send me an email and I will tell you.
Thanks Jack Straw, it is reassuring that someone sees the effort that I have put into this and appreciates it.
Have a great afternoon,
K Monte
Mr. Monte, that you make comments lik owners should finance repairs themselves or sell to someone who can shows you (a) do not understand what you are talking about and (b) you lack knowledge of the CDBG concept as a federally funded program.
anonymous 1:17pm
Can you explain how the "CDBG concept" works? I'm not familiar with this program but I am interested in it.
Community Development Block Grant program is what anonymous referred to. Do an internet search and you'll come up with oodles of info that is better described than anyone could do here.
You speak as if this money is unlimited because it is federal instead of local. Where does that money come from? Oh yeah, TAXES. But it doesn't make a difference to you.
Where was it said that it doesn't matter because it's federal money and not local? You're making claims that just aren't true. That does not change the fact that there is a definite need for these dollars which is why the program was probably started in the first place. Like with most federal monies, though, they are earmarked for a specific thing and if they're not spent here they will be spent somewhere else. We still have to do things smartly but to dismiss everything that comes out of city hall like Monte and Esslinger do is dumb and equally wasteful.
Community Development Block Grant or not, Mr. Monte has avoided a larger, and more important, question: What is your level of commitment to our older neighborhoods in Oshkosh? Do you agree or disagree that the city has a vested interest in the long term social and cultural viability of these neighborhoods and in some cases will need to be involved in their upkeep? What is your strategy to use this money and these types of programs in "wiser ways" within the guidelines set by HUD (as money intended to provide QULAITY low income housing is not qualified for road repairs and tree planting, although you suggested otherwise above)?
The other mistake you make is in the following statement: "what did they do with the rent that they collected when there was (sic) tenants?" Apparently you missed one of the reasons for targeting this neighborhood, which is it's high rate of home ownership. And yes, Kent, the city (through federally funded sources and in partnerhips with local banks) is in the business of home repair- every city in the USA is through several different HUD programs. Your question, "Should every property owner go to the city for assistance if they can't afford to rebuild a porch, put siding on, replace a roof, etc?" The federally mandated answer to that is question is "YES!!" If they qualify under income restrictions they can and should. I can point you to these programs on the city's web site, which have been in place for more than a decade- this is simply a larger scale, better funded extension of those programs.
Anon 4:04,
In your first statement you are right and wrong. Either that or Planning is wrong. In the handout that I have it specifically states that street trees are paid for using CDBG funds. You are correct about the street repair though, that is CIP funds.
As for your HUD statements, those are true as well but only IF you qualify. The owner (single) of two of the properties in question does not live there and I don’t think he ever did. I actually drove through this neighborhood and looked at these houses. When I got home, I went to the assessors website to look at values. The properties I am talking about are 679 and 683 Jefferson. Take a look, same owner. From the looks of it, he acquired these properties along with another for one lump sum. That being the case, do you think that he would qualify for HUD money? I doubt it. By the way, these are the properties that are condemned and MUST be torn down. Now do you really think that the city should pick up the tab or should we look at other houses with that money?
In the second paragraph you mentioned the high rate of home ownership. I have no idea what you are referring to. If you look at the map that is provided as part of the plan, and exclude the business and vacant property, you would see that there is actually a 40/60 split in owner occupied dwellings. Hardly a large amount in my book. Of the six properties that are up for consideration tonight, NONE are owner occupied. All are rental properties. One is even owned by a corporation. Now I will ask again, is THIS a good use of the grant money?
I want to develop this community. I want to make it better for those that currently live there. I don’t want to tear it down so that developers can build housing that is no longer affordable for the people that are living there. Make it better, not more expensive. Does that make more sense?
You also criticized my use of “real estate”. “We are NOT in the real estate business.” As used, I will go further to say that we are not in the business of buying and selling property. Fixing and assisting are different are considered assistance.
The home on Oxford is a cozy little 2 bedroom that I feel would be better to fix up than bulldoze and build new. That would make a wonderful starter home for a lower income family that is just starting out. Yet the city is planning to acquire, tear down, and hopefully sell to a developer to build a new house that will no longer be affordable to the same family. All I am asking is clarification. Are we really getting the best for the money being spent? If so, go for it. If not, lets look at it again and see if we can do it better.
Sorry this is so long but I hope I answered your questions. Please feel free to contact me, I would be happy to visit this neighborhood with anyone and share ideas for improvement.
Thank you and have a nice evening.
K Monte
Kent, the house you refer to is not "cozy" as you say, rather it is sinking into the ground as a result of a crawlspace beneath it- if you think it is more economical to repair that and jury rig a foundation, I invite you to call any concrete company and get laughed at. The home replacing it will be built on a modern foundation with a basement and will be built as a sustainble home in this neighborhood, where housing prices rarely exceed $100,000. No one is building a $230,000 4 bedroom split level ranch on this site- they are replacing it with a reasonably priced (one can assume, market forces being what they may), similarly styled, architecturally accurate home that fits in with the neighborhood and will be a REAL value to a first time homebuyer or family starting out. Not a shoddy little place that might collapse on itself any day. I think a house like the one that will be built there will increase someone's pride of ownership and pride in their neighborhood much more than your "cozy little place" on Oxford.
is it just me or was the 100 block of north main supposed to be "reasonably priced"????
They why do they have such high rent(one of the rooms is a thousand dollars a month!!!!)
Post a Comment