Blight Fight: Minneapolis, St. Paul receive housing bucks, but who benefits?

It’s nearly impossible to travel through Minneapolis and not witness the remains of the foreclosure crisis. Entire streets are left empty and dark. Historic homes have been turned into picked-apart skeletons. And as one foreclosure unfolds, its seeds take root in neighboring homes and streets, causing home prices to plummet and the mortgage mess to accelerate. The problem is especially visible on the city’s North side, where more than 800 homes are on the city’s vacant properties list.
As the number of abandoned properties rises, the Twin Cities are scrambling for solutions. But not everyone agrees the current plans to battle the blight are beneficial for neighborhoods and their current residents. Some residents say the plan for razing numerous homes will benefit builders and investors at the expense of neighborhoods and the community.
The mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul recently announced that, as part of the Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the Twin Cities will work together to purchase vacant homes that litter both cities. Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP), a project of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Minneapolis will receive $5.6 million and St. Paul $4.3 million to purchase and rehab foreclosed homes.
According to a press release from the city of Minneapolis, the intent of the funds is to “purchase, re-develop, and rehabilitate foreclosed properties.” However, as much as $1.7 million of the $5.6 million earmarked for Minneapolis will go toward tearing down abandoned homes. What’s more, another $1.5 million will be used to tear down properties that are not candidates for demolition, and the land will be held as vacant parcels until the market is ready for new housing.
While Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak touts affordable housing and preservation, some residents on places like the online Minneapolis Issues Forum are raising questions about the teardowns and whether the money will benefit the neighborhood or line the pockets of developers. And housing preservationists are calling the city’s quick-fix solution to bring in the Bobcats both costly and destructive.
Housing preservationist Constance Nompelis, who also works as a real estate agent and is a member of NoMi, a North Minneapolis neighborhood organization promoting North side arts and living, says she’s discouraged by the city’s plan, which was at first presented to her as a housing rehabilitation program, not a program for razing century-old homes.
“I think it’s horrifying that all that money is going to demolition, for a number of reasons,” Nompelis tells the Daily Planet. “The first is that I don’t believe all of these homes should be demolished. It’s much cheaper and greener to renovate. And one of the things that could be used as an attraction to North Minneapolis is the low prices of these homes. By mowing these houses down we are removing opportunity.”
Determining what neighborhoods are eligible for the funds
When Nompelis first heard about the program in August, as an active member of the NoMi, she was excited. She believed the bulk of the funds would go to buying up foreclosed properties from participating banks so they could be sold to owner-occupants. She saw it not only as a great opportunity for the struggling North side, but an opportunity for homeowners seeking affordable housing.
“Personally, as a realtor working in that area and a person with investment properties in that area, I want to see more owner occupancy in that area,” she says. “And I thought that was the plan, to use the funds for rehabilitation and increase owner-occupancy.”
While the North side has been especially traumatized by foreclosures, vacant homes are popping up like dandelions all over Minneapolis. In fact, it’s become such a prevalent issue that at least 50 neighborhoods, the majority in North, Northeast, Central, and South, are eligible for the NSP program.
Here’s how it breaks down: HUD requires funds from the NSP to be used in areas where at least 51 percent of low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents are at or below 120% of area median income (LMMA); and it must be used to benefit low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents. To put it in simpler terms, in order to be eligible for NSP funds, a majority of the four-person households in a neighborhood would need to have an annual income between $40,450 and $97,100.
The crisis in the hardest hit metro neighborhoods doesn’t end with vacant homes. HUD estimates that, in the next 18 months, the foreclosure rate in each eligible neighborhood will greatly exceed the national average, which currently rests at a little more than one percent. Hawthorne, on the North side, for example, is expected to see a 13 percent foreclosure rate in the coming months. Midtown-Phillips will likely see a roughly 10 percent rate of foreclosures. And if the past two years is any indication, as the cycle continues, property values will plummet and more homes will go vacant.
Defining what’s “affordable”
While it’s easy to determine what neighborhoods are eligible for the original funds, it’s not quite so clear if the homes built using NSP funds will remain affordable. Neither city has revealed its specific plans for the homes—including estimated prices for new, in-fill homes and who will be awarded the contracts for rehabilitation work, if there is any. Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak says the goal is stability and affordability. Yet the plans fail to outline proposals for new-home affordability and for maintaining neighborhood stability as new investors take over rental properties.
As part of the NSP program, along with approving the majority of the funds for teardowns, the Minneapolis City Council earmarked another large chunk, $1.4 million, to go to a consortium of nonprofit housing and community development organizations to buy up properties from participating lenders—Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase.
In Minneapolis, that means that on the North side and in South side, each of which has seen hundreds of foreclosures this year, an organization called the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation will buy and maintain homes for Minneapolis, according to a recent article in Finance and Commerce. GMHC’s board of directors includes major players from local businesses like TCF, Wells Fargo, Target, U.S. Bank, Xcel Energy, and more. Dayton’s Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, which was started in 1980 by neighborhood residents, plans to buy up vacant and abandoned homes in St. Paul.
“A core component of our aggressive and innovative fight against foreclosures has been to regain control of and revitalize foreclosed properties to get them back into the hands of strong, stable home-owners,” Rybak said in a press release this week. “This pilot project will help us hugely to accomplish that goal, and we intend to make it as successful as we can.”
Still, the details outlined in the Minneapolis city plans submitted to HUD on December 1 don’t exactly spell out “affordable.” For one thing, anyone with an income of 20 percent above of the metro median income or less is eligible to buy a home originally purchased with NSP funds. The eligibility income limit for a two-person household, for example, is $77,650. Meanwhile, all of the multi-family units created using NSP funds must be rented to households at or below 50 percent of the median income.
Stopping an endless cycle
So what does this mean for the neighborhood and its residents? On the face of it, it looks like the majority of single-family homes don’t have to be “affordable,” since anyone with an income up to 20 percent above metro median income is eligible to purchase them. It also means that in areas where homeownership is important for neighborhood vitality, the grants will keep the majority of low- to moderate-income families in rental units.
To put it in to dollar terms, a family of four with an income of $40,450 or less is eligible to rent a unit in an NSP-funded property, while a family of four making up to $97,100 is eligible to purchase an NSP-funded home. As an added kink, GMHC and Dayton’s Bluff Neighborhood can sell the properties at 95 percent of market value, leaving room for quite a profit when some vacant homes are being snatched up for as little as $15,000.
Additionally, given the fact that the number of vacant properties in Minneapolis has surpassed 900, critics of Minneapolis’ plans charge that funneling $5.7 million into the growing foreclosure problem is barely getting off the starting block. And the foreclosure trend doesn’t show signs of slowing down any time soon: Last year the Twin Cities saw nearly 13,000 foreclosure filings, according to a recent report by Housing Link. The organization predicts the Twin Cities will be hit with nearly 20,000 foreclosures this year. That’s a roughly 400 percent increase in foreclosures since the crisis began unfolding in 2005.
But perhaps more troubling for neighborhood residents is a lack of a real concrete plan, such as one that details more rules for landlords, and sets out criteria that developers must follow in creating new, infill homes. As Madeline Douglass noted on the Minneapolis Issues Forum, “Both First Look and the $5.6 million federal grant program seem to have very positive potential…but what will be the reality? Who will really benefit when the buildings are ready for sale?”
Molly Priesmeyer is a South Minneapolis freelance writer.


Subscribe








Comments
And which houses is another question...
In addition to the issues raised here, there is another question about which properties will be acquired based on what bank/entity ended up with the mortgage that went bad. The National Community Stabilization Trust is likely to dominate this spending, and could undermine neighborhood planning (especially in Saint Paul under the Invest Saint Paul program). Best to check which properties these money will even consider buying, let alone which ones stay standing.
Blight Fight
I am disappointed by the lack of thoughtful analysis in the “Blight Fight” article. The questions raised about investments are supported by two people who clearly have an interest but hardly are well informed of the overall issue of foreclosed properties. The suggestion that GMHC and Daytons Bluff will profit from the acquisition, rehab and resale of foreclosed properties is unfounded and just plain wrong. Although houses may sell up to 95% of market value, a house purchased for $15,000 is unlikely to be salvagable and the redevelopment costs would likely exceed the limits on the market value – and thus require a subsidy.
The foreclosure problem far exceeds the resources available. This will force some difficult decisions, but faulting those organizations who are working hard to meet this challenge is unfair and unjustified.The writer does a disservice to her readers by not delving deeper into the economic challenges of responding to home foreclosures. I trust that future reporting on this issue will be more thoughtfully researched and supported.
NSP
I am an old house lover and owner in North Minneapolis. The reality of owning a home is that it needs to be maintained and you need to be financially savy enough to put money away for the inevitable replacement of the heating system or roof etc. In the past there has been a push to make everyone into a homeowner. Even with homeowner training classes there is no guarantee that the homeowner will get this! The mantra of the time was creating pride through ownership. That was a falacy. If you don’t have pride to begin with, owning a home that you are incapable of maintaining will lead to further deterioration of pride. Perhaps there is room for decent rental as well as association type ownership. As long as we have a population with different needs, we should be looking at housing tailored to those needs. The issue with regard to tearing down current housing stock to my understanding it will be those houses not marketable to anyone but the worst of the slum landlords. Believe me I have been in those houses along with my housing preservationist friends and we are in agreement. Those are the houses that will always be the thorn in the neighborhood’s side, the proverbial rotten apple in the barrel. The way I see it, the wisest way to use this money is to encourage purchase / rehab by a person who will owner occupy and to not set an income limit on that. I know of people who are doing this and they are coming out way ahead with after rehab mortgages of under 100K. ( It costs more to have them rehabbed before marketing them and it becomes less affordable to the buyer. ) The buyer then gets to tailor the house to their taste with some guidance of course. The reason that there should not be an income limit is that the concentration of poverty in the hardest hit areas made them more vulnerable in the first place. A healthy neighborhood really replicates a small town with varying socioeconomic strata. The more affluent demand and are willing to pay for more quality ammenities. There tends to be thriving businesses and thus better paying jobs, better schools and recreational options. I’m hopeful regarding NSP!
Something needs to be done quickly!
The house next door to me was abandoned about a month ago. I suspect their ARM adjusted and they couldn’t keep up. This was a wonderful turn of the century home that had been completly renovated in the 1990s. They were a wonderful young family and excellent neighbors. After sitting empty for 5 weeks, vandals broke in over the Thanksgiving weekend doing tens of thousands of dollars of damage. I had already figured that the bank would lose 40 to 50 thousand dollars on a resale, now they will lose more. The best solution would have been to work out a solutions so the young family could stay!
Just so we're clear...
The the list of homes slated for demolition (along with those recently demolished) are a mixed bag. I fully agree that SOME are beyond hope… but not all.
Nor are they all too expensive to rehab.
Perhaps some are too expensive for a corporation with high labor and holding costs, but last time I checked there were other ways to fix up a house, including my personal favorite which is by a private owner supplying at least some of their own skill and sweat.
Not every home on the demolition list is a decrepit, burned-out shell.
A case in point is 2123 N. 6th St. This solid brick foursquare was last marketed at $12,900. Now it is gone.
You can see a picture here: http://tinyurl.com/5bzjrn
Home Demo's
Great article Molly!
It is unfathomable to me why the city would not invest that $1,700,000.00 into incentives to restore these homes and just give these homes to owner/occupants who want to invest and live in the community.
I agree with "Anonymous", With many foreclosures already have been picked up by slum lords who maintain these properties to minimum standards and rent them to the poorest class of individuals (through government entitlement programs). It is crucial that these neighborhoods begin to diversify.
The lose of tax revenue alone from these foreclosures will surely affect the cities budget for many years to come. Add to this the falling property values from existing homes impacted by the lack of infill in these communities where this senseless destruction is taking place. This translates into less dollars for policing, public works, and community education programs.
At what point does the city foresee the thousands of vacant lots being created in the community rebuilt into contributing households. It is a recipe for disaster.
Kris, I understand your sentiment and you are correct in being concerned about how programs meant to help are being questioned; however, I think that some very valid questions are being asked here. It is correct that many of the $15,000 homes may not be economically salvageable. However, most of the proposed homes to be built on these vacant lots will never be able to sustain a fair market price either. (If they ever get built at all).
Steve, you are right that the criteria for demo is very screwed up. We see some very marketable homes with great potential being bulldozed. But as a new Minneapolis resident, I wonder what kind of planning got us into this mess.
Patrick, what you have overlooked is that your tax dollars are already paying for the write off of these homes through the $700 Billion Congressional Bailout. Why take a loss on these properties to get them into caring homeowners hands which will improve the community when you can stiff the American public for the full cost of your loss. As Steve points out, the criteria for saving a home has less to do with the home itself than with financial arrangements behind the scenes.
Another problem with these vacancies is that there is no affective program to limit the looting that turns an overpriced home into a public eyesore. most of the damage to these homes take place after the creditors take possession.
The laws governing the enforcement and conviction of looters is so lax that I dare not address it publicly. We need legislation and enforcement that makes the title holders of these properties responsible for the condition and the safety of their investments. Home ownership is about more than a financial arraignment regardless who you are. It is unfair to the neighbors who have worked so hard to build communities, to let banks and financial institutions off the hook for structures that aren't maintained.
In regards to the salvage of demo homes- The city of Minneapolis has issued an RFP for any salvage and has not contracted with any salvage company. The demo contractors are given the opportunity to contract out salvage. This means that the salvage of building materials is only as expedient as it can be as to not interfere with the pace of demolition by the contractor. So we are filling our landfills with items that could be utilized in salvaging neighboring structures and old growth lumber.
Here is where I do a selfless plug-
Several weeks ago a small group of historic homeowners formed the Minneapolis Historic Homeowner Association (MHHA). Our intent was to promote vintage properties around the city (it still is). As we began to discuss concerns in our communities we felt we had to act on the very problems we are discussing here.
We have established dialog with the City Planning and Zoning Department, contacted Non-profit Green Recycling Centers, Attended Demo appeals, and are working hard to pull together community groups in an effort to learn more about the problems and formulate solutions we can live with.
We need your help. Check out our web site at Histhome.org and contact me for more information.
Post new comment