|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION
|
| Click
here for minutes from 2002 Click here for minutes from 2003 |
Click
here for minutes from 2004 |
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Heather Rodin, Acting Chair; Rev. Jeffrey Ingraham; Mary Corcoran; Bernadine Tatem.
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. Rodin called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm. She commented that Ms. Suib was taping the meeting and asked her not to do so.
Ms. Suib responded by saying that there is an FOI dispute pending and until such time that it is resolved she would continue to tape the meeting.
Ms. Rodin suggested a suspension of the rules to add an item to discuss FOI requirements.
** MS. TATEM MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA: DISCUSSION
OF FOI REQUIREMENTS.
** REV. INGRAHAM SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
September 20, 2004
** MS. TATEM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 AS PRESENTED.
** REV. INGRAHAM SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
November 15, 2004
** REV. INGRAHAM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2004 AS PRESENTED.
** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
December 13, 2004
** REV. INGRAHAM MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2004 AS PRESENTED.
** MS. TATEM SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S
ANNUAL REPORT, FY 2004-2004
Ms. Rodin noted that this was discussed at length during their December meeting and at that time they had agreed to table the item.
Ms. Tatem commented that the report contained Ms. Suib’s opinion and she was not in favor of it.
Ms. Rodin referenced her comments from the previous meeting pointing out that the Commission has to either accept or reject the report.
Ms. Suib stated that she had accepted many of the suggested changes and had applied them to the report. However, she noted that she had still left in the section regarding Barriers to Affordable Housing and the time continuum. She went through the changes.
Ms. Rodin replied that the changes made do not affect the basic problem she had with parts of the report especially the parts that were not taken out. There are other parts that she considered are argumentative and are not findings, therefore she could not accept the report. She added that she could work with Ms. Suib on the report.
Ms. Suib said that this report is the Fair Housing Officer’s findings and activities and views, they will not always share the same views. Since it is supposed to reflect the views of her (Ms. Suib) it is not assumed to be Ms. Rodin’s views.
Ms. Rodin noted that there are a lot of opinions in the report regarding controversial items and unless there is some delineation or an acknowledgement of where there are serious differences she would not vote in favor of it.
Rev. Ingraham asked if there could be a place in a report like this where the officer’s opinion could be valid.
Ms. Rodin reiterated that there are items in controversy and this controversy is between the Fair Housing Officer’s views and the views of this Commission. There is no acknowledgement of these problems. By accepting the report they would be buying into views that are not theirs.
Ms. Suib replied that the report should not equate to it becoming Ms. Rodin’s views. The acceptance of the report could be phrased to acknowledge that they do not agree with all of the statements made.
Ms. Rodin said it was her feeling that this would not be accepting responsibility.
Discussion ensued.
Ms. Rodin said a lot of these differences occur on the 2004/05 FY and she did not see any need for that year to be brought into the report.
Rev. Ingraham said he was prepared to follow the lead of Ms. Rodin with the strong suggestion that as early as the next meeting they need to be very specific in their response to the report that appear to be problematic. Anyone giving a report, their views are going to come in to it somehow and they could be at odds with anyone else. If Ms. Suib continues in this office and is expected to prepare an annual report it would be helpful that they be very specific about the differences and accept the responsibility.
Ms. Corcoran indicated that it would be helpful if Ms. Rodin and Ms. Suib met and brought back their findings for the next meeting.
Rev. Ingraham noted his concern that the annual report does not just reflect the issues of Ms. Rodin and suggested they devote a significant portion of the next meeting to get this finalized.
** REV. INGRAHAM MOVED TO NOT ACCEPT THE ANNUAL REPORT AND SECONDLY TO AT AN
UPCOMING MEETING DRAFT SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
FAIR HOUSING OFFICER.
** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
FAIR HOUSING OFFICER’S MONTHLY REPORT
Ms. Suib stated that a predatory lending case has come to light and is with regard to a woman in her 70’s, she is disabled, she owns her own home and lives alone. A lender telephoned the woman and talked her into refinancing her home; however the woman’s income is $770 a month (social security) and her loan payment is $1,800 a month. Ms. Suib stated that there is no way that a woman with that kind of income should have been approved for that amount. The woman in question came to the Redevelopment Agency looking for another loan; the staff there referred it to Fair Housing. Ms. Suib asked the woman if she had a complete loan packet, she did and the loan documents had a couple of big problems. Firstly there was a fabricated job, a sewing business, however the woman is completely blind. Secondly with reference to the appraisal the woman’s house was appraised at $450,000 the real value of the house is $327,000 approximately.
Ms. Suib said after reviewing the loan documents she telephoned the Attorney General’s office and after the woman signing a release, she sent all of the loan documents to the Department of Banking. The Department of Banking issued a public notice stating that the lender, Ameriquest would be taken to court and they are going after them seeking $5 million in penalties, as there have been similar problems to this one. The Attorney General’s office is trying to work with Ameriquest to get this woman some relief; however what they are seeking is better than what they would get in court. Ms. Suib added that this is a “good” case as the woman was not yet in foreclosure if this was not resolved she could have lost her home.
Rev. Ingraham said assuming this lady did not have a personal attorney, he asked if that was typical, and if it is perhaps the Senior Center could take a lead in this.
Ms. Suib replied that many lenders say that they don’t need attorneys.
Secondly, Ms. Suib said she had spoken before the Reed Putnam project negotiating – that is complete now, and has been approved by the Planning Commission. It still has to go to the Common Council and there will be affordable housing in Reed Putnam. She said there will be 19 units out of 190 (10%), 6 of them will be ownership and 13 will be rental units. These agreements are filed on the Land Records and the agreement reads that they will stay in place for as long as the property is used for residential housing. She went on to say that every single unit is accessible and they will be dispersed between floors and buildings, so there would be no way to tell the difference between an affordable housing unit and a market rate unit.
Rev. Ingraham mentioned the lack of activities for young teenagers in the city; he had recently sat in on a meeting with Seligson and had suggested something similar to Rock City in New York and wondered if when Ms. Suib next gives input that she could put forward this suggestion.
Ms. Suib said finally the Redevelopment Agency is starting a process of writing a consolidated five-year plan that identifies needs as a city and a community. She said she was interviewed for this and stated in her opinion that the most important need was affordable housing.
Ms. Rodin asked who is doing the actual work on this and if she was going to be having any more input into this other than her interview.
Ms. Suib replied that Munroe Johnson and Mike Moore interviewed her. She indicated that she wanted to be included in the process of writing the plan.
Ms. Rodin asked if Ms. Suib could report back to the Commission on what she says and if she thinks they should have a bigger role in the plan; also what she considers a positive role in the development of the plan.
OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Rodin asked if a letter was ever sent to Herb Grant.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business this evening.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
** REV. INGRAHAM MOVED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING
FOI REQUIREMENTS.
** MS. TATEM SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commission went into executive session at 8:24 pm and reconvened into public session at 8:38 pm. No action was taken.
Ms. Rodin requested the opinion of the Commission to make an appointment to speak with the Mayor. There were no objections.
ADJOURNMENT
** MS. TATEM MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MS. CORCORAN SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Kye
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |