| |
-
Some history
-
At the October 7 Housing Corporation meeting, Richard Baron cited his
efforts to provide financing for home owners in the Westminster development,
one of his earlier developments. He added that people could ask Bob
Babione about it. See the
meeting report.
It is true that the redeveloper in that case provided loans that had
below-market interest rates (which were very high at the time). Those
who participated also got tax abatement. (I did not participate in
that program; my law firm represented the owners.)
I believe the context is important. First, Baron held a meeting at
the Salad Bowl to announce the redevelopment plan to the residents.
Sometime later, surveyors came around and placed stakes at the corners
of the lots and put markings on the buildings.
Then, one of the residents found out by accident that the redeveloper
had applied to the city's Heritage and Urban Design Commission for
demolition permits for our homes. This was without our permission
and without any notice to us. The plan seemed to be to level two blocks
and do all new construction of rental units.
I do not remember the exact proceedings before the commission. At any
rate, five or six home owners filed a lawsuit for trespass and, I
think, slander of title. It was after the filing of the lawsuit that
Baron offered the loans to the resident owners. After agreement
of those who wanted to take the deal, the plaintiffs dismissed
the suit. Participants in the lawsuit and a few others were allowed
to stay in their homes and the redeveloper rehabilitated a few of
the original buildings.
On the eminent domain front, the developer offered some figure in the
low 30 thousands for the commercial property at Sarah and Westminster.
My partner and I also represented these owners. In the course of
negotiations (as best I remember),
the offer went down into the high 20 thousands. At trial, the jury
awarded the owners $90,000 (which is what the owners said it was worth).
The developer then changed lawyers, appealed, and got a reversal.
A second jury awarded only $87,000 (which is what the owners' appraisers
said it was worth). The developer appealed again, but the court affirmed.
I had to contact the insurance company that put up the appeal bond
before any money was paid to the owners.
-
The present situation
-
The usual question asked after I tell anyone that Baron had asked for
a seat on the Housing Corporation Board is, "Is that good or bad?"
It seems like it should be good.
I agree with Kathib Waheed that -- no matter how organized and how
dedicated residents may be in a neighborhood like FPSE (with so many
households in poverty) -- connections with big money interests are
needed to provide major assets that the political process ordinarily
would provide (schools and hospitals, sewers and roads, for example). The need for big-money connections is seen in FPSE. The people of FPSE
could not have provided the $16 to $18 million needed to renovate
Adams School and build the new Community Center. (Though I believe
the Board of Education's need for classroom space to meet demographic
trends would have led to more classrooms somewhere.) As Baron said
at the October 7 HC meeting, more resources are needed, especially
in view of the city's current financial plight.
Apparently there is a new contract between the Washington University
Medical Center Redevelopment Corporation and McCormack Baron and Associates
or Urban Strategies (which has a three-member board with Baron being
one of the three and the president with one of Baron's employees serving
as secretary and treasurer, according to the corporations last filing
with the Secretary of State). That is counter to the representations
at the outset of the building of the senior Assisted Living Center
and the Adams School rebuilding. More than once, Vince Bennett (and
others too, including Baron, I think) said that the McCormack Baron involvement with
FPSE would taper off. Was there any public discussion of the desirability
of such a contract before it was announced? I suggest that HC board
member Kate Reese's request for the "exact agreement" should be
met with full disclosure of the agreement rather than Baron's non-response
at the meeting.
The bad thing about Baron's presence on the HC board is, I think, the
risk that the HC's project-oriented approach will continue to dominate
the neighborhood. People and people values will loose out to the completion
of deals.
But Baron's presence on the board should have one very healthy effect
-- especially with Marcella Palmieri's resignation as the HC's executive
director and the opportunity that resignation creates for him to influence
the appointment of her replacement. Baron's open presence should dispel
the illusion that the majority of the people who live in FPSE have
any substantial say about what happens to them, their homes, and their
neighborhood. The risk is that the roles of resource gathering and
policy determination will not be separate, that the power to set
policy will not be separate from implementation. That is, the "policy"
will be whatever Baron finds he can get a deal to implement. Unless,
of course, Baron's presence means that he actually listens to the
people who are here. Hard work and communication are needed now.
| |