|
|
|
|
FAIR HOUSING
ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES
|
AUGUST 21, 2006
ATTENDANCE: Rev. Jeffrey Ingraham, Chairman; Lori Torrano, Carol Frank
Barbara Hudgins, Nancy Burke, Bernadine Tatum (7:40 p.m.),
Cesar Ramirez (8:27 p.m.)
STAFF: Margaret Suib, Fair Housing Officer
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ingraham called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Ms. Suib introduced the new members of the Commission, Carol Frank. She stated that Ms. Frank was appointed to the Commission and represents the Human Relations Commission. The remaining members of the Commission introduced themselves to Ms. Frank.
Ms. Tatum arrived at 7:40 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 19, 2006 MINUTES
Please correct the following items
Page 1, under ATTENDANCE: Please change “Bernadette Tatum” to “Bernadine Tatum”.
Page 1, last line: Please change “Ms. Tatum arrived at 7:47 p.m.” to “Ms. Tatum arrived at 7:57 p.m.”
Page 2, paragraph 7, line 2: Please change “Food, Fuel and Shelter Committee” to “Food, Fuel and Shelter Council”.
Page 3, paragraph 1, line 2: Please change “They did their part…” to “The presenters did their part…”
** MS. HUDGINS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
** MS. BURKE SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
III. DISCUSSION OF ‘BORROW WISE’ PROGRAM.
Rev. Ingraham briefly introduced the topic. Ms. Suib distributed copies of information to the Commission to inspect. She then reviewed this state wide anti-predatory lending educational program. The Bank of America partnered with local agencies to reach the fifteen communities where they have already done programs. Currently, they approached the City, who referred Bank of America to Redevelopment. Redevelopment suggested that the Fair Housing Commission also be part of the effort. The presentation took place in May and was well attended. After the initial program, the State requests that the service providers do follow up with the consumers. Three follow ups were generated. One of them was from the Norwalk Senior Center. This was covered by Channel Twelve News. Another one is scheduled for the 31st with the Norwalk Housing Authority. The final follow up will be with NEON and Ms. Suib hopes to schedule that before mid-September. Ms. Suib then reviewed the various documentation in the packet that the attendees received during the follow up presentation.
Ms. Suib commented that Norwalk has been aware of predatory lending for a number of years and that it has not grown as quickly in Norwalk as it has in other places. She felt that education may be preventing the growth of predatory lending in Norwalk.
Rev. Ingraham asked if Bank of America will be doing anything in the future on this. Ms. Suib stated that this program was limited. Once the third follow up is done, the program will conclude for this particular program. Ms. Suib stated that if the Commission wishes to continue educating the community about this, there are other programs that can be done. Ms. Suib stated that April is Fair Housing Month and that the Commission usually presents a program during that month. She said that a discussion on what the Commission would like to do for that program would be appropriate that the Commission could link with if they wished to do another program on predatory lending. One suggestion was to look at the high credit card payments of 21% or 22%. Ms. Suib commented that it was a major part of the power point presentation.
When asked if the materials were available in Spanish or Creole, Ms. Suib replied that she has asked if the state had the materials in other languages and the answer was no. One member commented that her husband had discovered that translation work was done by some members of the community for gratis. She suggested that perhaps the translations could be done by volunteers rather than paid professionals. Ms. Suib stated that when during the sign up for the program there was an opportunity to request Spanish, but no one had requested it.
IV. DISCUSSION OF SECOND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
Rev. Ingraham stated that he felt that it would be good to review the document that the Commission was governed by. He said that he wished to ensure that the Commission was performing the task that the law suit intended it to do.
Rev. Ingraham asked about the wording on page 1, paragraph 1, where it states “in the sincere desire by all parties to build much needed low and moderate income housing”. He asked for clarification of the words “all parties”. Ms. Suib replied that in this document, when the phrase “all parties” is used, it refers to the party to the lawsuit. Rev. Ingraham then reviewed that statement, commenting that both the City and the NAACP were responsible for building the low and moderate income housing. Ms. Tatum commented that at the time of the suit, there was alot of discrimination going on in the City. She stated that the Board was set up to ensure that there was more affordable housing and not connected with the discrimination going on. Ms. Suib commented that when the original suit was filed in 1983, the first paragraph was taken from the original consent decree. The problem at the time was there were objections to some public housing that was supposed to be constructed off of West Avenue. The project stalled and the suit was filed. Part of the objective of the suit was to insure that the housing would be constructed. Ms. Tatem commented that the housing that is planned for West Avenue by Mr. Siegelson will not be affordable housing. Ms. Suib stated that it was her understanding that the development that was under consideration was actually built. She said she thought it was the public housing off of Orchard Street. There was a discussion about whether this was the actual project. Ms. Suib stated that this took place before her time and that she knew that the funds were used to build something in that neighborhood.
Ms. Hudgins stated that she had been the secretary for the NAACP during 1983
and had copies of the minutes at her home. She said that the consent decree
reads “to build much needed low moderate income housing,” in the first section.
She stated that she did not see anything in the ordinance about building anything.
Ms. Hudgins said her third point was that the City build something, but it was
unclear as to what that was. She went on to explain that there was no real connection
between Fair Housing and building affordable housing.
Ms. Torrano commented that Section 8 starts to get at the purpose of the Commission.
Ms. Tatum stated that there was no monitoring of the buildings on Chapel Street.
Ms. Suib replied that she could bring in the former consent decrees which were
filed with the court. Ms. Tatum stated that she wanted to know what the name
of the housing was that was built from the decree.
Ms. Hudgins had some questions about the phrase “to take full advantage of currently available federal housing subsidy funds and avoid loss of federal housing funds in the future” and asked how this was being utilized now. Ms. Suib stated that the Norwalk Housing Authority is the largest distributor of federal housing funds in Norwalk, and the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency also receive federal housing and development funds. She then explained that because of the law suit, the City’s receipt of the Federal funds were in jeopardy. Ms. Hudgins asked if the City was getting the full advantage of what is out there. Ms. Tatum stated that the Redevelopment Agency was not taking fully advantage of federal assistance. She also commented that the current programs work for first time home owners, but as far as, apartments, the Housing Authority has worked on that portion of the project. She stated that the Norwalk Housing Authority is the only group in town that has actually been building affordable housing. It was commented that affordable housing has to be deed restricted and has other legal requirements. Ms. Suib stated that she thought that there had been a ten year period where very little building had been done because the market was not good. One of the Commissioners commented that Norwalk was about to lose more of the current affordable and end up very close to the 10% margin. If the City does not maintain the 10% margin, it will lose a major portion of the funding. Ms. Suib stated that she had just completed the counting for the State, which Planning and Zoning used to do. One of the Commissioners commented that there was a significant number of affordable housing on the list that was public housing. Ms. Suib replied that the State of Connecticut considers public housing as affordable.
Rev. Ingraham asked Ms. Suib to compile some information on affordable housing. Ms. Suib replied that the definition is the State’s statute. She then suggested that copies of her finalized list would be given to the Commissioners at the next meeting.
Rev. Ingraham asked if the Commission was to assume that the Redevelopment Agency’s efforts were to represent the City’s effort to fulfill the housing mandate. Ms. Torrano commented that the Commission was an advisory group and did not have the power to enforce things. She stated that the Fair Housing Authority Commission should be generating back to the City information about the housing needs. This includes making recommendations to the Mayor, Common Council and others. Ms. Torrano stated that she felt this was the focus of the Commission. Ms. Hudgins said that it was unfortunate that Section 8 of the Amended Consent Decree had nothing to do with affordable housing. Ms. Torrano disagreed and said she felt affordable housing was a component of the broad spectrum, and cited that the Commission was to establish policy statements and be advocates for those who need housing. Ms. Torrano stated that she felt the Commission needed to focus on this issue more and less on other matters.
Ms. Suib commented that the first part of Section 8, “monitor private and public housing practices for compatibility with fair housing objectives”, which she felt focused on predatory lending which Ms. Suib feels is discriminatory because it targets groups. “Lack of affordable housing” also speaks to that, because the poor are also disproportionately minority or elderly. She concluded that in her opinion, it was not possible to have fair housing in a location where affordable housing was not available.
Ms. Hudgins expressed concern about the number of developers who have come into Norwalk recently with plans for $400,000 condos are not required to put in affordable units. Ms. Suib stated that there was a pending ordinance regarding this.
There was also some concerns expressed about Ms. Suib’s lack of help and whether this would be able to be addressed under Section 11. Ms. Tatum stated that in the years that the consent decree has been in effect, the budget has not increased significantly. There was a discussion about how this might be applicable.
Mr. Ramirez arrived at 8:27 p.m.
Rev. Ingraham asked Ms. Suib if there was a document titled “Fair Housing Objectives”. Ms. Suib replied that these were just broad objectives and that there was no document by that name. Ms. Hudgins commented that it was a professional understanding. Rev. Ingraham asked for a copy in writing for better understanding. Ms. Suib said that she did not have anything in writing on that, but she could draft something for the Commission.
Rev. Ingraham proposed that the meeting be adjourned with the understanding that this discussion will be continued. Ms. Suib said that she would be bringing some of the former consent decrees which discuss the affordable housing that was built, a list of the affordable housing that was submitted to the State. She also offered to give the Commission members the formula that was used for that determination. Ms. Torrano asked about the HUD block grants that the City receives every year. Ms. Suib replied that those grants did not really apply. Ms. Suib stated that she would look at mission statements of various organizations, which is where one would find Fair Housing objectives.
Ms. Suib stated that after the last meeting, she had sent out a memo with the information about the affordable units. One unit would be approximately $100,000, and two bedrooms would be approximately $140,000 in Reed Putnam.
One of the Commission members requested that Ms. Suib provide the Commission members with copies of the pending ordinance, if it was part of the public record.
V. OLD BUSINESS
There was no additional old business for the Commission to discuss at this time.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
There was no additional new business for the Commission to discuss at this time.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
** REV. INGRAHAM MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |