Developer suing Ann Arbor over failed affordable housing project
Developer HDC LLC of Ann Arbor is suing the city for more than $15 million in damages over its failed affordable housing project on the old YMCA site downtown.
The firm and two partner companies with offices at 35 Research Drive filed a 26-page lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Monday, claiming the city intentionally put up roadblocks for two years that caused the developer economic harm.
HDC is suing the city on seven counts, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, fraud and tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy.
"It's a very serious claim. Our client has been damaged substantially," said Birmingham attorney Dino Kostopoulos. "Our client spent a couple years working on this. Our estimate is our client has suffered damages in excess of $15 million."
City Attorney Stephen Postema could not be immediately reached for comment today.
A surface parking lot exists today on the site at 350 S. Fifth Ave. It used to be the old YMCA, across from Ann Arbor's downtown library. The city purchased the property in 2003 to preserve at least 100 units of low-income housing.
In 2004, the city issued a request for proposals to select a developer to construct a low-income housing project. HDC proposed redeveloping the YMCA property and the adjoining site owned by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.
The project was to include a condo building with 100 units of affordable housing, four stories of office and retail, market rate housing, an enclosed terminal for the AATA and underground parking. The occupants of the affordable housing units were to be residents with continuing mental or emotional impairment, documented substance abuse problems and chronic homelessness, according to the lawsuit.
In June 2005, HDC's proposal was chosen by the city over five other applicants. The City Council passed a resolution accepting HDC's proposal and agreed to a purchase price of $3.5 million for the property.
Following the city's acceptance, HDC established a company named XY to develop the project and set up another company, 200 East William, to be the developer and owner of the affordable housing. Both are listed as co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
In October 2006, the state awarded the developer more than $18.5 million in tax credits for the project. Soon after, the developer asked the city if it could modify the project to include a hotel and conference center and eliminate the market rate housing and offices included in the previous plans.
The plaintiffs claim the city "provided no formal response," and the issue lagged for months. In January 2007, the plaintiffs claim, they advised the city that the state required the revised project to be formally adopted by the City Council for it to process a $6 million tax credit.
What followed were several "months of frustration in attempting to secure approvals and agreements from the city," until the City Council finally approved the revised project in March 2007, the lawsuit states.
|
Related Stories |
Between 2005 and 2007, the plaintiffs spent more than $2 million on architectural and engineering fees, feasibility studies and other expenditures, the lawsuit claims. In April 2007, the developer was awarded $7.5 million in Brownfield credits, but dealing with the city continued to be a formidable process, the lawsuit claims.
In October 2007, the city finally agreed to grant the developer an option to purchase the property, but required the developer apply for demolition permits by no later than Oct. 15 - just three days after the execution of the agreement, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs claim when they went to apply for the permits, they were advised by the city they couldn't because the city still owned the property.
In November 2007, the City Council denied the developer's request to modify the demolition permit deadline and sent a notice from the city attorney's office terminating the option agreement, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs claim the city intentionally delayed and arbitrarily refused the project in an attempt "to destroy the affordable housing project in downtown Ann Arbor in order to prevent recovering alcoholics/drug addicts and the mentally handicapped from residing at that location." The lawsuit also alleges the city wanted to reallocate the tax credits to a different project or developer and wanted to sell the property to another person or entity for more money.
"By its actions and its refusal to convey the land, the city prevented the development of the revised project," the lawsuit reads. "Because of the city's actions, plaintiffs lost the benefits of the low-income housing tax credits, the Brownfield tax credit, the construction and financing commitment and in excess of $2 million in out-of-pocket costs and the fees, profits and other benefits associated with the revised project."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 12:27 p.m.
During the few years that I was a member of the city's Housing Policy Board (it is in charge of distributing the money we get from the Federal Government for affordable housing), we concluded that having affordable housing downtown didn't make sense, that it was more logical to have developers contribute a set amount of money per unit towards affordable housing and then use that money outside downtown to build affordable housing where it is cheaper to do so, and more units can be built. @Chuck Warpehoski is correct that cities that concentrate low-income housing Cabrini-Green-style in one location found that to be a very bad idea and now the best practice is to have small housing units here and there in traditional residential neighborhoods with the required supportive services delivered to them on location. The fact is that whereas in 2006 there was little affordable housing in Ann Arbor, now in 2009 there is a lot of affordable housing available in Ann Arbor: you can buy a nice unit in the Village Coops for $60,000 all-in and in Geddes Lake Condos for $90,000 all-in and bus service to both locations.
notnecessary
Thu, Oct 15, 2009 : 3:21 a.m.
YEAH! PROTECT THE POST OFFICE!........ -_-
bunnyabbot
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 9:11 p.m.
the postal service wants to close the liberty street station b/c it is attached to the federal building, something they wanted to do as a result of the oklahoma city bombing and more so after 9/11. whatever gets built the bottom of the building should be the new post office and the back a parking lot for all the postal vehicles. it might be prime realestate BUT with all this "urban" living crap they need to have a post office downtown!
calmic
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 1:56 p.m.
If city officials really want to provide in-town housing for low income and / or homeless people, they should convert the new city hall building to that purpose. I would rather see homeless people benefit from my tax $ than the judges / lawyers / criminals who will be using this $400 + per square foot palace of bureaucracy.
AccruedInterest
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 1:24 p.m.
$2m in expenses? yeah right. How much is direct labor and how much is allocated overhead...remember the DoD's $500 hammer?
GerryD
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.
While I really do think there are societal benefits to having "halfway" housing for folks needing to transition, I do not understand why we keep trying to put such places in downtown. It was mentioned the Deloins center has 50 beds. Back when it was being discussed, an alternative location outside of downtown was proposed. It would have had over 200 beds, cost less, had recreational facilities, larger kitchens, dedicated bus line downtown, etc. It was shot down, in large part, because detractors called it "warehousing the homeless". So instead we spent a lot more to put in a facility downtown that handles less than a quarter of what we could have been helping. Same thing for the Y -- beyond the shenanigans of the city regarding developers (at this point, I don't even really understand why developers try anymore), the city has already shown they can find housing for folks not directly in downtown. Why not require the developer to invest in a housing facility outside of downtown and not force that housing into any new project? It doesn't have to be far outside of downtown -- prices drop quickly once you get out of the core, so we're not talking about moving them to Coldwater or something objectionably distant. They would likely be able to create more housing and help more people than a downtown setup would be able to offer. I wonder if it's some liberal guilt at play and the idea that not building downtown might speak of "second class" citizenship or something similar. Silly -- most folks I know, folks who make good money, can't afford to live downtown and don't feel slighted by it. It's going to be expensive to live in the core of the city, but there are plenty of other options. Why can't we try to get the best bang for the buck and help the most folks with the dollars used and drop this idea that there is something shameful about providing facilities that are not in the most expensive real estate in the city?
JPhil
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 12:23 p.m.
Moose, Any project that meets current city ordinances should get approved. Plain and simple. The city has ordinances in place that developers are expected to follow. Changing the rules in the middle of the process is not right and the city seems to feel that the rule book does not apply to them. If a plan meets the ordinances, approve it. PUDs are different in that a developer is requesting something in exchange for giving "public benefits" and those public benefits also seem to be a moving target. What is a public benefit for one project is not necessarily true for another PUD project. Again the rules change as the city feels appropriate for various reasons. Unfortunately politics and wanting to get reelected motivate some council members to "sway in the breeze" and change their positions on issues that they feel are too hot politically. But I do agree with you that development in this city is contentious. Personal attacks by the vocal opposition(s) (NIMBYs can take many different forms) have become the norm in this city whether its against affordable housing, increased density, the Y site development for low income housing, the new parking structure site, etc. There will always be someone opposed to any new proposal. But if you are opposed to something, at least do have discourse with whom you disagree and try and work out a solution.
Chuck Warpehoski
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.
This lawsuit brings up a lot of issues. Regarding the value of having affordable housing downtown, there was an advisory panel that recommended this to ensure that people with limited income have access to transportation, jobs, and services. Personally, I'm a big supporter of affordable and supportive housing, I agree that low-income residents need access to transit and services, and I don't think it is good for communities to concentrate low-income housing Cabrini-Green-style. That said, with how much money the Y site is worth, I think the city would have been better off selling it for a good pile of money and then building better affordable housing in areas where land is not as expensive. Regarding this lawsuit, it's hard to feel sympathy for a developer who missed so many deadlines that (as I understand) the developer agreed to. Regarding the development process, I agree with many of the commentators that this magic 8-ball process where a developer doesn't know what to expect from the process does not serve the community or the developers well. I think Ann Arbor should have high expectations for developers, but I think those expectations should be clear, transparent, and predictable to make it easy for developers to propose good projects that meet the guidelines and easy for the city to reject bad proposals that don't meet the guidelines.
townie
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 11:39 a.m.
The City will be closing the "Y" lot for two years to use for storage and staging for the construction of the underground parking garage across the street.
treetowncartel
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 11:11 a.m.
Why don't they let those tent people from Arborland set up here until the dispute is over? It might be a way to mitigate the damages.
grimdaddy1
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 10:59 a.m.
what a shock the city of ann arbor keeps lower middle income and low income familys from moving in. this city is about as unfriendly to people who don't have money as you can get, but thats why we have the #1 main street right! pretty soon a2 will have no poor or lower middle class familys.
Moose
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 10:39 a.m.
@Jphil. Apples and Oranges The comparison between the Old Y fiasco and other proposed developments in the area isn't relevant. The Old Y situation is bureaucratic bungling pure and simple. The decision to renovate the Old Y as affordable housing was made by politicians with the best of intentions. Bureaucratic mismanagement within city hall made the shortsighted political decisions worse, resulting in the continuing and costly fiasco we have today. Neither City Place nor the Moravian complied with zoning or development rules. Both of them were declined by due process, not by shouting. Blame the "shouters" all you want, but they take part in the process and in doing so, they try to keep the politicians and bureaucrats honest, if that's truly possible. The Old Y is a completely different animal and discussions of development, pro or con, are not well served by arguments that distract from the root causes of why development is contentious in Ann Arbor.
JPhil
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 10:07 a.m.
This is called job security for the city attorneys. I am surprised that the City Place developer has not sued the city for all of the city's procedural mistakes and then initiating a HDSC to stop a specific development (as all on council publicly admitted to) that met all of the city's zoning ordinances. It's the handful of zealots who scream the loudest who get heard in this town. Reasonable people get outshouted.
Moose
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 10:04 a.m.
"The only question here is why the City picked this little fish out of water in the first place." Desperation. A cascading series of disastrous decisions made by politicians and insider bureaucrats, the city hall bureaucrats resorted to this obviously poorly though out "solution" in an attempt to cover their collective behinds. Several years later not only do we have a surface parking lot with no plan for development, the loss of affordable housing, and several million dollars spent with nothing to show for it, we now have a lawsuit that will cost all of us, even if the city "wins". The Old Y lives on.
Ryan J. Stanton
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 10 a.m.
Here's the text of the "Fraud in the Inducement" claim (Count VI): "As set forth above, the City insisted upon the Demolition Permit Milestone in the Final Option Agreement, as a condition precedent to Plaintiffs' exercise of the option. The City knew at the time the Final Option Agreement was executed that the City would not allow Plaintiffs to apply for demolition permits and, thus, Plaintiffs would be unable to satisfy the Demolition Permit Milestone. "The City affirmatively represented to Plaintiffs that the Demolition Permit Milestone was achievable. In the alternative, the City failed to advise Plaintiffs that the Milestone could not possibly be achieved, when under a duty to so advise. The City intended that Plaintiffs would rely upon the City's affirmative representation as to the achievability of the Demolition Permit Milestone (or would rely upon the City's silence as to the impossibility that the Milestone could be achieved). "Plaintiffs relied, to their detriment, upon the City's affirmative representation (or omission) in executing the Final Option Agreement. The City thereafter asserted that Plaintiffs' failure to achieve the Demolition Permit Milestone constituted a default, and thus terminated the Final Option Agreement. The City's fraudulent conduct has destroyed the Revised Project, and has caused the loss of the allocated Tax Credits and the Brownfield Tax Credit. Plaintiffs have thus been damaged by the City's misrepresentation."
Whither Detburger
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 8:31 a.m.
The truth is this developer bit off more than he could chew and failed to meet any deadline set out in the initial agreement. The developer shucked and jived for two years, always asking for just a little more time and always failing to deliver. He didn't have the money or expertise to pull this off and, as they say, those who cannot do, sue. The only question here is why the City picked this little fish out of water in the first place.
AAJoker
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 8:15 a.m.
HDC cannot complete their work on time, thus asking for numerous extensions of deadlines until they are finally fired by the City. Naturally they can't accept their own role in the firing and instead run like a baby to their lawyers wasting everyone's time and money. When is the US going to wise up and deport all lawyers? Or at least penalize severely anyone who submits a losing lawsuit.
Moose
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 7:49 a.m.
Decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats of the City of Ann Arbor = Attorney's Permanent Employment Act.
wordup
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 7:37 a.m.
At least the City Attorney or shall I say Attorneys aren't feeling the crunch of these tough economic times! Wonder how much money the City is shelling out for legal disputes these days. Hope they keep enough money to finish that new City Hall!
a2grateful
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 7:25 a.m.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Wed, Oct 14, 2009 : 7:21 a.m.
This is great news! One good lawsuit and hopefully more will follow! Once the word gets out that Ann Arbor just bypasses the law - hopefully more lawyers will get involved here.
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 11:48 p.m.
It would seem HDC has offices in Novi. It's listed address in the lawsuit is its Ann Arbor address at 35 Research Drive, though.
gamebuster
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 11:47 p.m.
Ann Arbor City failed to replace former YMCA site. It made over 100 low-income people lost their place. It makes the local homeless situation worse. AA has about 700 homeless, Delonis shelter only has 50 beds. All these years, many homeless has been sleeping on chairs on the second floor, called warm center. Most homeless have Deep Vein Trambosis. Others sleep in dumpsters, bathroom, cemetery, under the bridge. Some build tents out there and got arrested. Today, 4-5 homeless gathered at the bus stop in front of Delonis or a picket to support the arrested homeless Caleb poirier. Delonis Administrator Barbara accused us of "Trespassing Wastenaw Property" and called the Police on us. Yesterday, more than 30 homeless said that they would join the picket, but one told me "We cannot join, shelter has strict criteria, they can ban us from entering the building, we need food and warm center, though sleeping on chairs for years." I even got banned by a staff called Ruth today "You can eat here, but if you do political activity here, you're being asked to leave." I don't run any government office here. I don't vote for any election right now. What's political activity? I'm doing humanitarian work, but I got banned. This is how inadequate affordable housing tortures our people. Want to check who sleeps on chairs. Check their legs, all filled with big green floating veins. Caleb Poirier's case is deferred to Nov 10, he's being accused of trespassing Michigan land. He's a guy with very good heart, well-known in homeless community, has been taking medication for over 13 years. Should we put him in jail?? Maybe, he wants, homeless amuse themselves "Not bad, running water, electricity, bed, warm room...." See how people are suffering!
gamebuster
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 11:46 p.m.
Ann Arbor City failed to replace former YMCA site. It made over 100 low-income people lost their place. It makes the local homeless situation worse. AA has about 700 homeless, Delonis shelter only has 50 beds. All these years, many homeless has been sleeping on chairs on the second floor, called warm center. Most homeless have Deep Vein Trambosis. Others sleep in dumpsters, bathroom, cemetery, under the bridge. Some build tents out there and got arrested. Today, 4-5 homeless gathered at the bus stop in front of Delonis or a picket to support the arrested homeless Caleb poirier. Delonis Administrator Barbara accused us of "Trespassing Wastenaw Property" and called the Police on us. Yesterday, more than 30 homeless said that they would join the picket, but one told me "We cannot join, shelter has strict criteria, they can ban us from entering the building, we need food and warm center, though sleeping on chairs for years." I even got banned by a staff called Ruth today "You can eat here, but if you do political activity here, you're being asked to leave." I don't run any government office here. I don't vote for any election right now. What's political activity? I'm doing humanitarian work, but I got banned. This is how inadequate affordable housing tortures our people. Want to check who sleeps on chairs. Check their legs, all filled with big green floating veins. Caleb Poirier's case is deferred to Nov 10, he's being accused of trespassing Michigan land. He's a guy with very good heart, well-known in homeless community, has been taking medication for over 13 years. Should we put him in jail?? Maybe, he wants, homeless amuse themselves "Not bad, running water, electricity, bed, warm room...." See how people are suffering!
adameichner
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 10:29 p.m.
The Novi point was merely for clarification. But it is good to hate people that aren't "from around here". Wait - I'm not from around here. Strike that. and hold all my calls. Its quiet time.
adameichner
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 10:27 p.m.
Don't like corporate masks. The gentleman's name who owns said corporations is Michael Jacobson. And contrary to the article, the businesses are all seemingly located out of Novi. He tries to carpetbag his way in here, whispering platitudes about low income housing, gets halfway through the project and decides - "nah -- would rather put in a multiplex super duper shiny shiny project!" Then has the audacity to be upset, after changing his own plan for the project, shedding the benevolence and going bare knuckles capitalist, to be upset when the city turns the gag back on him. Hope they dismiss this and hit him for attorney's fees.
stonecutter1
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 10:27 p.m.
Thank You voiceofreason! The bleeding hearts be damned. Speak the truth! The only benefit is higher taxes for productive members of society! I'm a liberal, but enough already! Go soak someone else!
voiceofreason
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 10:07 p.m.
I am not much of an urban planning expert, but I am wondering if someone can answer a question for me. I understand that the purpose was to replace the previous "clientele" of the old YMCA, but has there ever been any proven societal benefit in building housing for "extremely low-income persons with documented substance abuse problems and chronic homelessness" on valuable downtown real estate?
YouWhine
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 9:53 p.m.
Once again, this stupid Y comes back to bite the city. This issue has been costing city taxpayers millions and will continue to cost them now even when the building is gone. City council had NO business trying to run a halfway house. Even when they bought it, their own city inspectors told them the place should be condemned and was LITERALLY falling apart. A few years later it actually started to literally fall apart and now the city pays to house these people around the county. Everything about this was a bad idea. The city buying it, the city trying to force a developer to maintain residences for the old crackheads in the most prime real estate in the city, the city CLEARLY playing games with the developer ("you can buy it, just go apply for the permit"... "oh you can't get the permit cause we own it..."), and the city abruptly pulling the plug. Was the developer blameless? No. But will the city pay out big time? Yes. They have shown for years that they refuse to establish a clear set of rules for development. Even when they TRY to set up rules, they change them and pick and chose who has to follow them. The developer would be a lot more believeable if they had left out the part about the city not wanting low income housing. Quite the opposite. Their insistence on low income housing on he most caluable real estate it owned was the problem. The saddest part is that the city will pay millions of dollars for this and then turn to whichever city employee group is bargaining for a contract and use this as an excuse to screw them as hard as they can.
PersonX
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 9:20 p.m.
With all due respect, I cannot imagine what this has to do with anything that anyone from Germantown said, as it is a process issue between council and a specific developer. I also do not see why anyone with a strong opinion against a specific project should be labeled a zealot, nor have I heard anyone screeching. This kind of schoolyard bully language contributes nothing to any debate.
Marvin Face
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 8:01 p.m.
They kept the low income part in the project and jetisoned the market rate component when the housing market started to turn.. The root of the problem with development in Ann Arbor is that City Council refuses to make tough decisions (and often go against the Planning Commission) for the best of the City when faced with a vocal minority of folks. And be assured that no matter where the development is, there WILL be a vocal minority that screams about something being out of scale and whatnot.
notnecessary
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:51 p.m.
@Julie - You are correct. They didn't scrap the low income part of it. The city made that a necessary part of the deal because the YMCA used to be a low-income housing place, so they didn't want to lose low-income housing. Now people can sleep in their cars in the parking lot, instead.
Julie
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:42 p.m.
I don't get it. I thought they were going to change the market rate housing to hotel/conference center, but leave the low-income and supportive housing component as well. Am I reading that right? They didn't scrap the whole low-income part of it, did they?
JPhil
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:40 p.m.
Not that his matters, but people living south of the site were happy to see the Y close. It was nothing but problems with the people living there. The city had no business trying to run a half way house for people with mental and substance abuse problems. And as to Novi, why is that a problem. And tax credits...so what...this was going to be a project that a bank would not touch...admittedly Jacobson was fighting an uphill battle. But I do think no one wanted to see this type of housing right downtown especially with all the problems it would create. Most local developers know better than to try to do business in this city.
notnecessary
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:36 p.m.
@doodles True I think its probably generally a bad idea too, especially the specific targets that were looking to go into this development. However, the developer probably didn't want that part of it either. That's the city's fault. They want to make sure low income people have a place to live in the most in-demand area. Doesn't make sense to me but neither does most of what our City government does.
notnecessary
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:34 p.m.
@adameichner "Don't like corporate masks"??People set up corporations to protect their personal finances against liability for things the corporations do. Likewise, it makes sense to make various corporations to protect the whole-entire corporation. What exactly don't you like about corporate masks? You found out the guys name...now what? And what is the solution? Doing away will all corporations?
doodles
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:32 p.m.
I have been a property manager for over 15 years in Washtenaw County. All I can say is low income housing and market rate housing don't mix. I have worked in a low income housing project (that I won't name, but you all know)and with low income housing comes crime, more drugs and violence. Poverty and addiction are vicious cycles. Put that in a building with people who are paying fair market rate (about $1000 a month in Ann Arbor) and you get a mess. It sounded like a beautiful dream but would have been a real disaster.
JPhil
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:27 p.m.
I see more of these suits coming from other developers who tried to play in this city...
JPhil
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:22 p.m.
Ann Arbor does have a bad reputation as a city in which not to develop. The rules change...what they agree to can change...they don't play by their own rules. And the city will say "We have legal staff to defend these law suits"..the problem is we are paying for their salaries...and now they may need to hire more attorneys to defend the city against all these law suits...and then raise taxes...the city does try to rake people over the coals...and then ask "we don't understand why the developer is doing this..."
bunnyabbot
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:15 p.m.
this is what happens when the city plays games outside the scope of what their focus should be. they messed up when they bought the building to begin with. one stupid move after another. the library site will be another big payout as their is a suit in the works. good ridance I hope herb david and et al win. this city council sucks.
Julie
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:13 p.m.
Wow. That's exactly where a large low-income development belongs. Right downtown. This project should have been completed. I am at a complete loss as to why it was not.
notnecessary
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:09 p.m.
Word to wise developers: Stay out of Ann Arbor! Our City government will rake you over the coals a few times and make sure that any profitable project turns into a money loser! Go to one of the surrounding townships to develop.
brianew
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 7:07 p.m.
The developer's concern for the "...recovering alcoholics/drug addicts and mentally handicapped from residing at that location" is more than highly questionable as it requested the city to accept a modification in the agreement to eliminate market rate housing and offices and instead build a hotel and conference center at that location. Sounds like a game of bait and switch! If the project was for such individuals why did the developer request a change to eliminate them from the project?
braggslaw
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 6:42 p.m.
No good deed goes unpunished. The city could have paid to house all the homeless with the damages they are going. Morons
Moose
Tue, Oct 13, 2009 : 6:35 p.m.
It appears that the developer couldn't do it with is own money and was relying on a multitude of tax credits. Who in city hall was the point person for this fiasco that will cost the city a pile of money, if not in actual damages but staff time to fix it or make it go away?