The Observation Deck

That's exactly my impression. It appears that the block grant money will be used to fund the salaries of an "Executive Director" and some support staff.

Further, it states that LA/LCPI plans to acquire a MINIMUM of 2 vacant houses in 2009. Again, with what money is unclear and what exact plans they have for the properties is not stated.

Look at Page 5. CBDG asks for benchmarks of the number of clients served for specific objectives: Social Service, Economic Development, Housing, and Infrastructure. According to the proposal, there will be no benefit except under Housing (rehab, new construction, or code inspection.) And of that, they expect to service 120 housing units for the year. The total number of housing units to benefit directly from the program is blank.

Also, on page 6, the group admits it has no process in place for serving beneficiaries that do not speak English. That is a concern, as well.


On page 8, the proposal is asked if the program will generate revenue and the NO box is checked. But later, on page 12, they claim they WILL make money.

On page 12, the proposal states that LA/LCPI "has entered into discussions with the cityabout taking foreclosed/vacant homes into receivership for rehabilitation and resale. The proceeds of this program could fund the balance and expansion of the housing education and compliance program and/or other LCPI programming activity."

Note the bolding. So if they do make money reselling the properties, they can use the money for other programming activity?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhhhh nothing like the smell of money to make people experts.

Did you miss the point that LA is hiring people with housing and building code experience?

This proposal is strange. They are saying that the project inception would be 1.01/09?

They are looking to hire already for a job that doesn't have funding?

They are looking to rehab two houses with volunteers - now that's funny. How the insurance for doing that? That should be cheap right.

Source of materials for rehab - in-kind donations? I don't think so.

They haven't done what they said they would do with Main Street - economic development in downtown - what Panera bread, did they do that? Lakewood Hospital expansion did they do that? Diversify the businesses, um no.

So you create another project, which is strange and not thought out well and use the profits from that to keep their wheels greased.

This money would account for half their overall funding.

I don't think so.

Grace is their some way we can see the other proposals that were turned in for these funds.

I found out how to look the the proposal submitted for 2009.

Lots of money there. Also a lot of great agencies and city departments.

I'm learning about resources I didn't know we had and that's wonderful.

Speaking of resources, I have to ask a question.

Is this program really necessary?

I suspect a property not in compliance with code generates at least some phone calls. So the inspector goes out. If he sees the homeowner, he can hand them a paper listing agencies and organizations that can help him if he needs funding to address the code issues. Alternately, when the city sends a letter to a violator, don;t they give information on how to comply? Can;t they add phone numbers and names of agencies that can provide money or assistance?

Do we really need to pay yet another person to "facilitate" getting this information out? And if there is a consensus that none of the above actions are sufficient, why not have ONE person from the city designated to make calls to these people asking them if they need further assistance?

Instead, we'll have a new program, a paid executive director, a paid "compliance outreach coordinator, "and a paid assistant coordinator.

Sheesh.

All submission proposals to the Community Block Grant Development Committee are provided to committee members ahead of the public discussion date. At that point, those applications undergo scrutiny by committee members.

In the 2008 meetings of the committee, there was discussion of how the housing component of all this would come into play. In the first place, the Building Department, while certainly willing to work with residents, is primarily charged with the enforcement component of the law.

It was my understanding, as a CDBG committee member, that the program under discussion would be in place as kind of a pre-building department resource clearing house to help residents before facing the citing sanctions of the Building Department.

It sounded like. properly implemented, it could develop into a good component tool as an aid to the city and the residents towards addressing resident housing issues without some punitive issue first being put into place.

At the same time, this could potentially free up the Building Department to pursue pressing cases in prioritized fashion, particularly with the reduced staff currently in place.

All just my impressions, based on memories from last year.

First: should this be in the LA section of the board instead of here? That's what it was created for right?

And Second: I would like to know what exactly their plans are for this housing code position. If it is just to assist home owners on knowing what violations are, and how to go about fixing them, that sounds like a good idea. If they want to enforce them, I don't see that as their place. It is the city's place to enforce those violations.

Also, I'd like to see some new development in our housing stock. Some of our houses are in fairly poor condition. I don't think it would be a "historic loss" if some of them were removed if it turned out the cost of renovating and restoring happened to be higher than building new. People seem to get attached to the word historic not realizing the great diversity in architecture we actually have in this city and how well the styles play off one another.

chris richards wrote:First: should this be in the LA section of the board instead of here? That's what it was created for right?

And Second: I would like to know what exactly their plans are for this housing code position. If it is just to assist home owners on knowing what violations are, and how to go about fixing them, that sounds like a good idea. If they want to enforce them, I don't see that as their place. It is the city's place to enforce those violations.

Also, I'd like to see some new development in our housing stock. Some of our houses are in fairly poor condition. I don't think it would be a "historic loss" if some of them were removed if it turned out the cost of renovating and restoring happened to be higher than building new. People seem to get attached to the word historic not realizing the great diversity in architecture we actually have in this city and how well the styles play off one another.

Chris

Possibly

As for the rest, as is often the case we agree coming from completely different angles.

The point I have always made on this.

Before we go to far, let's look at the record of those involved.

I would think that instead of giving the $$$$ and power to one group that has two members driving the bus that have a serious trouble in being open and forthcoming when asked about things as simple as conversations with school board members, and dog parades. How can we trust them with as much as $1 million, and deciding about property.

If one can stand at a public meeting and say to paraphrase, "Don't you understand wealthy people want to move in there..." How do we trust them helping those that need help? If they are so quick to blight one neighborhood, tear down another, and stop development in a third because of as many as 40 cars a day, can they be allowed to be the gate keepers of our future, our past, and our rebuilding?

It would seem the sane thing to do would be to put together a review board, like the architectural review board. To look and direct. If this group were volunteers, it would leave the $1 million to help rebuild and bring homes and buildings up to code. A board made up of one from the building department, one from the historical society, a developer, the arts committee, and a couple more. To advise, to educate and to help.

That would leave LA to handle the things they excel at, dog parades, Christmas parties, and Walk and Roll, and fund raising for their budget.

With that, in the end the entire city wins.

.

The City of Lakewood will receive $589,901 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and $902,439 in Homelessness Prevention money, as part of the economic stimulus package.

Why would this not be managed and implemented out of Lakewood Christian Services?

They have the space, they have the history, and they have the heart?

Especially, and $902,439 in Homelessness Prevention money, as part of the economic stimulus package.

Maybe would could resplit LCPI/LakewoodAlive. Allow Lakewood Alive to run the Spooky Pooch Parade, and the Walk and Roll® they did so well. Let Mikleann Rensel, run LCPI, and Lakewood Christian Services help those in need.


FWIW


.