Part three of live blogging for Monday, February 6.

INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: READING


R-12-03 Resolution Opposing Expansion of Low Income Housing Projects within the City of New Albany ... Zurschmiede

KZ says that since he's been seated on the council, he has heard from many constituents opposing low-income housing projects. He thinks it would be prudent for the council to oppose these current two projects, but there will be changes in the resolution.

The city clerk reads the whole ordinance. I am not sure if what she is reading is the same as what was in the previously published text.

Phipps: Paragraph 5 ... based on what information given to the council? Coffey answers that he doesn't know how many low income houses we have, but we need no more of them, there are two many.

KZ says that Legacy is a seniors facility, but with no stipulation that it will stay that way. The developers leave, and then the facilities deteriorate. We make too many fire and police runs to them. Phipps asks the question, but KZ has "no answers tonight" and asks Phipps why he didn't ask earlier. Phipps now mentions that he knows why low-income wording was removed. Mentions attached notions of racism and sexism, and KZ takes umbrage and erupts. "We're over-ran" with subsidized housing.

Note that at this juncture, not a single statistic has been cited to support any of this. Because Phipps is the one to ask questions like this, you can see where it's going. KZ could have told Phipps his reasons had Phipps asked him before, but admits he didn't bring any of it with him. KZ thinks that we need upscale developments, and maybe so, but why does he implicitly trust those developers to do it correctly, and doubts that low income ones cannot be made to observe codes? Is it because we don't enforce codes? 

Phipps gets very passionate. Good for him. But this is just as complicated as Jameson suggested earlier, though not for the same reasons.

Caesar: He assures us that no one is against seniors, or any other conceivable form of discrimination, as long as people pay property taxes to his satisfaction. Caesar repeats that all of this is about property tax payments, proving the need for a human rights commission. Caesar now seeks to prove that the city will lose $7 million dollars in property taxes if these two low-income developments are approved.

Coffey: Blames low-income developers for not responding to non-existent code enforcement regimens. "This damns" people to bad situations. Steve Price, in attendance to the rear, yells his assent as Coffey gesticulates to the crowd. He was not thrown out. He'll learn.

Gonder: Defends the housing authority. Speaks quietly, without rancor, and refutes Coffey's contention that no way is offered to get out. Gonder believes that the basic problem with these two proposals is that they usurp the proper role of the housing authority in doing this job. He sees nothing racist in it. Everyone now rallies around Bob Lane and the work of the housing authority. Caesar kowtows to Lane.

Sterling Group dude: They're a full-service residential development company. Multi-family housing, market rate and affordable.  53 properties and 8,000 units under their control. Explains difference between public housing and tax-credit housing. The latter is funded through private money, not public. Sterling is the landlord and collects the rent. Sterling targets a completely different clientele. Public housing is for those below 30% of median income. Affordable tax credit housing targets 30-60% median income. He describes the packet given to the council.

Differs from other such proposals. They did a study in October, 2011, which calculated 570- 757 households that would fall into their range. At that time, there were 66 affordable units in NA, 100% occupied. 30 or so more such units have been approved and not finished. 83% of senior households without alternatives in NA. Even with Sterling's 74 units, many still will have no options. Also, supports the downtown historic rehab plan by renovating Reisz Furniture. 74 households to support downtown business. $12+ million investment. Up to this point, the development has been well-received -- past mayor, redevelopment commission, maybe the current mayor (met with them today), DNA, the library, the Y, etc.

Reiterates Sterling's commitment, and answers previous objections: Federal public housing is not the same as Sterling's. They do background checks, and pay taxes (fair share). Zero tolerance for drugs.

KZ: Commitment to just seniors forever? 50 to 100 years?
Sterling: Within fair guidelines. Must stay this way for 30 years.
KZ scoffs.
Coffey believes this is semantics. Without credits, would they be building?
Sterling: Yes, but perhaps not the affordable side of it.
Coffey: Money's got to come from somewhere.
Sterling: Affordable housing needs to be affordable for those who needs it.
Coffey: These things always go downhill. I'll support tax credits for the houses we already have.
Sterling and Coffey argue about the nature of subsidized housing.
Sterling: "Mr Lane and I do not go after the same clientele" ... Sterling goes after the deficiencies in the market.
Gonder: What is fair share?
Sterling: We pay the taxes required of us. Gonder mentions Mitt Romney as another person who pays exactly as required.
KZ would rather see a senior forced to remain in a house that's too big, because that way, we collect full property tax. I don't see him offering alternatives, though. Perhaps I don't understand GOPconomics.
Sterling: "All we can promise is to capture the need for 74 couples."
Phipps: Agrees with the Sterling assessment. Opposes tax abatement to corporations. Coffey panders to the newbie.
Caesar: Back to his fetishist IRS numerology. We can not collect properly assessed value if this happens.
Coffey: "There comes a point in time where business will have to start pulling its fair share." Accuses them of not having the interest of the people at heart.
Sterling: Only 10 units in the Reisz itself.

Vote: All ayes except Phipps, McLaughlin, Gonder

More coming.