|
Key West Community Housing Authority writes letter to Mark Roush for Land Authority to use non-profit builders
---------------------------------- Edwin O Swift, lll writes response October 26, 2007 |
.
|
From: The Key West Community Housing Committee RE: Item #7 for October 24th Meeting of M.C.C.P.L.A. We the Key West Community Housing Committee are very concerned about item #7 “Approval of acquisition procedure for the affordable housing sites nominated by the City of Key West.” We would urge the Committee adhere to the following guidelines: 1. Consideration of proven non-profit organizations over for profit organizations. 2. Saving of families of people who live and work in the City who are in danger of losing their homes. 3. Preserving Historical redevelopment of homes. 4. Consideration of green buildings. We believe that the current acquisition nomination of the Suncrest trailer park in Stock Island a development by Habitat for Humanity is the type of win-win situation where we protect the homeowner, and the environment. We thank you in advance for your consideration of these points. ___________________________________________ October 26, 2007 REF: The recent e-mail from the Key West Community Housing committee to Mark Rosch outlining criteria for acquisition procedure for the affordable housing sites nominated by the City of Key West. Dear Mr. Rosch and Mr. Clayton: In my opinion, any funds expended by the Land Authority for affordable housing should have criteria based on: 1. How many people in our workforce will be helped for how much Land Authority money expended. 2. Consideration should be given when projects are similar in scope as to income levels and economic groups being helped. A policy to favor not-for-profit status or historic preservation or even saving someone’s home, while very appealing emotional issues, are irrelevant as to the suggested expenditures of funds by the Land Authority. This is not mean spirited but practical. The Land Authority itself is not a charity organization. The advisory board and the Land Authority represents the county commission and the entire citizenry and has limited funding in the Land Authority budget. These funds must get the most “bang for the buck” whether the developing group is for profit or not-pro-profit. The individual project should be the guiding criteria and judged on the basis of stretching the funds to maximize the number of people in the workforce who will ultimately get into housing because. As a for profit housing developer I resent the implication that somehow not-for-profit status automatically confers a better deal for the renter, or owner or for the Land Authority dollar. So long as the most efficient use of funds is attained corporate structure is irrelevant, especially so when the project creates in perpetuity affordability with government ownership of the underlying land. With 80% of affordable units nationwide being built by “for profit” folks I think that setting up criteria that creates hurdles for business ventures that attempt to take the inherent risks involved in building for the workforce would be shortsighted. Sincerely, Edwin O. Swift, III |
