Real Redevelopment for Downtown Miami

REDEVELOPMENT 101: IF YOU WANT JOBS, HELP NEW BUSINESSES, NOT HARASS THEM!

2010-06-04T05:49:00.000-07:00

After the failure of Urbanite Bistro, job creation in the downtown redevelopment area is severely at risk. With the bistro's failure primarily due to customers' fear of the blighted neighborhood, other new businesses need to learn from Urbanite's misfortune. Grand Central, a recently opened event venue located at 697 N. Miami Ave (http://www.grandcentralmiami.com/), is determined to succeed despite the inability of the City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to redevelop the surrounding neighborhood. In order to support the recently opened business, Bradley Knoefler, owner of 697 Lofts and Aramis Lorie, owner of Grand Central, decided to spruce up the surrounding streets to support the business and improve patrons' safety and security. As recently reported in the Miami Herald (activists take matters (and bulldozers) into own hands), the duo fixed up the surrounding neighborhood by using local residents to support the Grand Opening, which occurred on May 13th to great success. The party was successful, drawing rave reviews and hosting over 700 people from a diverse cross section of Miami, with the Spam All Stars performing live.

However, the road to the opening was fraught with roadblocks and rogue elements in the City and the neighborhood seemingly determined to harass the new business at almost any cost. Several hours before the opening on May 13th numerous City of Miami vehicles repeatedly drove past the venue and later a code enforcement official arrived with several reported violations, including operating a nighclub without a permit and other alleged illegal acts. Sources within the City reported that the Overtown NET office and the CRA had called in these violations, surprisingly not just once but numerous times during the day to ensure that Code Enforcement hit the venue. This is despite a cease and desist letter to Mr. Loren Daniel, Overtown NET administrator, who has previously harassed and threatened the parties involved. At approximately 7:30 PM, three police cruisers blocked the entrance to the parking lot on the Old Miami Arena site and threatened Brad Knoefler with arrest for tresspassing on private property. "I asked them if the owner had called them," said Knoefler, "they said no but the had 'reason to believe' that I was trespassing." Luckily Commander Sanchez of the City of Miami Police Department stepped in to diffuse the matter after speaking to the owner by telephone and the lot was allowed to open provided that the parking was offered at no charge. Satruday night at 1:30 AM, Andrew Mermelli of M&M Parking, incensed at the free parking being offered across the street, drove up and placed the "free parking' sign in his car. When security confronted him for stealing the sign, he attempted to run him down with his Porche Cayenne. A police report was filed and the sign was quietly returned at 3:30 AM. No arrest was made.

The following weekend the venue, attempting to spur economic development in adjacent Overtown, invited Darrick Rudolph, a licensed street vendor to serve the nearly 1,000 customers attending the venue. At approximately 10:30 PM, four police cruisers pulled up and forced Mr. Rudolph to shut down his business, due to the lack of a special Downtown Development Authority permit, required of Overtown street vendors who wish to cross the tracks to serve the 20,000 visitors to the Entertainment District every weekend. "I was on private property," said Mr. Rudolph, "and asked them to give me a warning so I could sort it out Monday but they didn't. I invested all of my cash in food and now can't sell it. It's hard enough already to make a living, now this," he said, obviously frustrated.

So why is it so difficult to start a business and create jobs in the "redevelopment area" of Downtown Miami? Our elected officials constantly talk about jobs, jobs, jobs and the City of Miami CRA's stated mission is to spur economic development and to reduce slum and blight. Is the City really that business unfriendly? No, although certain ordinances, like the one that prevents street vending after 6:00 PM can unintentionally hinder job creation and should be revisited A more probable explanation is that there are certain rogue City officials, Parking Lot Operators, and Developers who have a vested self interest in keeping Downtown Miami unsafe and blighted, in spite of the need for a decent quality of life for the thousands of new residents. The big question is when those truly concerned about job creation will reign them in.

If we really want to create jobs, not just talk about creating them, then we need to learn from these examples and help business startups, not harass them. Identify and eliminate the barriers to economic development and the vested interests and agencies that want to keep the area as it is. Elected officials please take note..

REDEVELOPMENT 101: IF THE CRA WON'T DO IT, DO IT YOURSELF!

2010-05-08T17:09:00.000-07:00

The City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency's failure to reduce slum and blight is well documented and can be seen firsthand every day in the Park West and OMNI neighborhoods of Downtown Miami (see: Once full of hope, Park West now forgotten). Beginning with the 1982 Redevelopment Plan, which has never been implemented (see 2008 comparison with 1982 plan), to the wasting of millions discovered in the 2003 Audit, to a report to the Miami City Comission by the 2005 CRA Oversight Committee which again confirmed that the CRA had not fulfilled its mission of reducing slum and blight. Finally the 2009 Formal Request for Legal and Performance Audit of CRA's documented that the CRA continues with its old practices of spending money on anything but fighting slum and blight. The last straw was the refusal of the CRA to fund a neighborhood beautification project requesting a meager $25,000 grant (of a total project cost of $65,000) in order to beautify nearly 500,000 s/f of blight, prompting a frustrated e-mail to the CRA Board (Why do projects which create jobs and reduce slum and blight never get funded by the CRA?)

So what do you do if you have invested millions in the neighborhood and the slum and blight is putting your business and property at risk? - Redevelop the neighborhood yourself!

A group consisting of the OMNI PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (OPWRA) and GRAND CENTRAL, inspired by a recent post on transitmiami.com/ (Better City block by block Dallas as our example), decided to "just do it!" Unemployed residents and homeless were hired to repair the curbs, improve the streets, landscape, and bulldoze the 5 acres of rocks on the site of the old Miami Arena. "We've invested nearly $2 million in Grand Central, and it's important that the neighborhood be clean, safe and well lit." said Aramis Lorie, principal of the new venue, scheduled to open on May 13th (grandcentralmiami.com/). Nearby residents were impressed. "Its about time the CRA spent some money in this neighborhood," said a passerby. "Unfortunately this is not the case," said Bradley Knoefler, President of OPWRA, "in the 10 years I have been here the CRA has not repaired a single sidewalk or repaved a single street despite having a $25 million annual budget and $70 million in the bank. It really is beginning to seem intentional rather than due to incompetence," he said. Knoefler also called on absentee landowners to join in the cleanup effort, pointing at the lots across the street owned by Nitin Motwani, a board member of Downtown Development Authority. The public parking lots, which have collapsing barbed wire fences and are overgrown with weeds, stood in stark contrast to the freshly painted streets, which appeared newly paved. "We've called code enforcement on that illegal lot for years but nothing has been done." he said. "Maybe because he's a DDA Board member he gets special treatment but the reality is that people live and work here and it really is a slap in the face to local residents to keep your property in that condition."

In addition to vastly improving the surrounding block, the project had several positive impacts on residents' lives. Barry Williams, homeless since the CRA demolished the church where he had lived as caretaker, used his earnings to move out of Camillus House into his own room at a local rooming house. T-Bone Ford, who also worked on the project, was inspired and wanted to do more. "Maybe we can do something like this over in my neighborhood," he said, flashing a wide smile.

COMMUNIST MIAMI? HOW THE CITY OF MIAMI DEMOLISHES PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH NO DUE PROCESS. ARE YOU NEXT?

2010-03-12T19:19:00.000-08:00

The saga to save some of the last remaining historic buildings in the City of Miami's "Historic Overtown" neighborhood, the Mitchell Rooming House and Phillip Allen Billianrds, continued today in a hearing with Judge Valerie Manno-Shurr of the Eleventh Circuit Court. Attorneys from both sides squared off but central to the hearing was a decision by the Miami-Dade County Unsafe Structures Board to issue a demolition order due to the owner being a "no show" to the hearing. The demolition order request, which was originated by the City of Miami Unsafe Structures Official Cedric Mar, claimed falsely that the reason for demolition was due to the building being "vacant, open, and abandoned," obviously not the case as the building has been occupied by the Apostolic Revival Temple, a vibrant church whose Sunday services were recently recorded by local news media such as WSVN Channel 7 News. In an attempt to justify his claim, Mr Mar submitted misleading photos showing only a small portion of the building housing the Church, attempting to group it with the abandoned building next door. "The photos are not of the Church," said Pastor Allen of the Temple, "those photos are of the building next door, we have been here for 13 years." Doris Hall, representative of the owner of the property said "the case wasn't even heard and debated as Rev Nevin was not properly noticed and was not even aware of the hearing, so a default demolition order was issued."

Even though public documents clearly show that the notice of hearing was not mailed certified mail, and the box checked for "notice to owner/interested parties of hearing by certified mail" was not filled in (see demolition order request), the City of Miami attorney insisted that at a photo of a notice of the hearing supposedly posted on the building constituted proper notice to the owner. "All I see is a photo of a notice posted on a white wall, this could be on any building." stated the owner's attorney. "That's proper notice to take someone's property?" said Pastor Allen of the Temple, "we are at the Church all the time and never saw anything posted - in this neighborhood, the homeless could snatch that in an hour."

"What really worries me is that this is the type of thing that would happen in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela or Cuba," said Brad Knoefler of the OMNI/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, which formally applied to designate the properties historic last week. "I mean, what if I was out of town, and a City official posted a notice of hearing to demolish my building stating it was 'vacant and open', which is not true. Then someone removes the notice and I don't attend the hearing beacuse I don't know about it - next thing I know the City is taking my property and I have no recourse." he said, "if this is the precedent, every property owner in the City of Miami should be afraid."

Knoefler's group has requested an emergency hearing of the Historical Preservation Board with a view to save the buildings from "being lost forever" and fails to see why the City of Miami would not back off and let a proper evaluatin of the occur. "There is enough evidence (letter from Black Archives, Overtown Community Advisory Board letter, Irby Mcknight letter) that these are historically significant properties to the Overtown Community, I don't understand why won't they give us a some time to properly evaluate the situation," he said, "what is the urgency now that the properties are secured and safe?"

Judge Manno-Shurr is expected to issue a ruling on the matter Monday.

CRA VIOLATES DEMOLITION STAY ORDER, NEIGHBORHOOD CLEANS UP SO CALLED 'CRACK DEN' DESPITE GRANT REFUSAL

2010-03-07T12:20:00.000-08:00

Late Friday evening the City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency cut electrical service to the threatened building housing the Apostolic Revival Temple, proceding with the demolition process despite a Miami-Dade County Judge's temporary stay on the demolition order. "We think it was done illegally," Pastor Allen of the Temple stated, "I called FPL and they said there was no cut off order for my service, and how can they do that - I thought there was a stay on the demolition until Friday?" he said, "what if we win? - how are we going to have service next Sunday without power?" Doris Hall, representative of the property owner said "this again shows how the CRA is manipulating the system to get what they want - they probably showed FPL the demolition order and 'forgot' to show them the Judge's stay order." she noted "we will inform the Judge first thing Monday morning of this blatant disregard and violation of her order." James Villacorta, Executive Director of the CRA, gleefully watched as the power was cut. "he's out here all happy and jumping up and down acting like he did yesterday when they demolished Moe's garage," said a local resident, getting emotional, "it's not right - this is all we have left." Ernest King, a well known local artist who had been looking to put a live/work art gallery in the old Moe's Garage property confronted Villacorta, who had been attempting to lobby support for the CRA. "don't come out here all boasting about your big projects," he said, "It's disrespectful to us 'cause we know we aren't part of them."

Ms. Hall also blasted the CRA in a letter to Jim Villacorta for refusing a $4,000 grant request to eliminate the 'crack den' stating:

"If the urgency of the demolition stems from the public liability from people entering the property and the trash strewn around the property, why would you not allocate funds on an emergency basis, as you are allowed to fund up to $4,500 without Board approval. Would this not be considered negligence on your part, since the CRA trust fund is holding over $70 million dollars needing to be reinvested with the taxpayers and residents in Overtown to create jobs and revitalization of these properties?.. We believe that the true intent of the CRA is to demolish and acquire the properties through an eminent-domain like procedure in violation of Federal, State, and Local laws, in order to assemble the remaining parcels for a large development project."

Despite the refusal of the CRA to fund the cleanup, a community effort to clean up and secure the property took place Saturday as reported by CBS 4 News. The project was in part funded by donations from Sunbelt Rentals and WSI Waste Services. "the CRA won't give money to reduce slum and blight, which is their mission, so we decided to do it ourselves", said Bradley Knoefler, who organized the effort. "We put three people to work, cleaned up the site, and eliminated the 'public safety' and 'liability' issues that they were using to say why the building should be demolished." he said. "the CRA really should fix the neighborhood, its pretty easy, as we just showed, but instead they spend their time and money trying to destroy Overtown's history."

Pastor Allen held Sunday service outisde on the street due to the Judge's decision to prohibit entry into Chrurch until the hearing next Friday. "the devil is working against us," he said, "the devil cut off the electricity, but God is on our side." Several members gave emotional testimonials about the importance of the Building housing the Church to them. One member said it was symbolic because this building helped him to quit drugs and get off the street. Barry Moore, the caretaker who resides at the Church and has been homeless and unable to get his clothes since the Judge's order came into effect said, " I am 58 years old and all my life I have not seen the Government put a Church out on the street. I can't believe this is the United States of America. What happened to 'all men are created equal' and ' land of the free'" he said, holding back tears.

The formal hearing for the stay of the Demolition order will be Friday, March 12 at 2:30 PM at the Dade County Courthouse, 73 W. Flagler St, Miami FL

R.I.P. MOE'S GARAGE, CRA CONTINUES DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC OVERTOWN IN SPITE OF NEIGHBORHOOD OUTRAGE

2010-03-05T06:51:00.000-08:00

Despite a Miami-Dade Judge's order to stay the demolition of two historic properties, stating that she "didn't see the rush," the City of Miami's Community Redevelopment Agency continued with its plans to demolish what little is left of Historic Overtown yesterday with the demolition of the former Moe's Garage building, which was located at 163 NW 11th street. The building, which was structurally sound and completely secured against vagrants, simply needed the roof replaced in order to revitailize the property. Plans were underway to propose an adaptive reuse of the property, which included a live/work art gallery for local artists who currently must paint in the street as well as several apartments which would help increase the supply of affordable housing stock in Overtown, the shortage of which is another major problem for the community.

The timing of the demolition was indeed suspect and appeared to be in spite of community outrage against the demolition of the last few remaining stuctures in the "Historic Overtown" neighborhood. The Overtown Community Advisory Board unanimously voted to request a stay on the demolitions and Irby McKnight, well known local activist in a letter to Commissionere Dunn, noted that the CRA is "charged with redevelopment as well as preservation." In strongly worded letter to Commissioner Dunn The Black Archives, guardian of Overtown's historical legacy stated:

"There is a repeated offense being perpetuated against a once vibrant community which has done so much for the establishment of the City..what makes these structures historic is the fact that they represent the last remaining remnants of what Second Avenue once was. While other neighborhoods are allowed to build off of its historic nature and offer house and neighborhood tours, as well as the opportunity to point to their past by hand, Overtown has been given the finger."

Frank Rollason, former Executive Director of the CRA said in an e-mail that former Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones and Chairman of the CRA had plans to demolish the historic Ward Rooming House for a big affordable housing project, even after the CRA had spent more than $600,000 to rebuild the entire building. "What is wrong with this picture," he said, "here you are the black Commissioner representing Overtown wanting to tear down what is obviously a historic part of what is to become the Lyric Village and here I am, a white boy, arguing with you to save it!.

"It's almost like they did it out of spite to prove a point and retaliate" said Bradley Knoefler, President of the OMNI/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION a neighborhood group concerned about the lack of preservation and affordable housing in the area. "every time we start looking to do an adaptive reuse project on a historical structure, they pull out all the stops to demolish it to continue with their plans for big new developments." Rosa Green, community leader and Overtown Resident for nearly 70 years said "more than 85 percent of the Overtown that I knew has been demolished. We are losing our history."

The groups plan to continue to reach out to elected officials, who have so far ignored Community concerns on the issue. "Mayor Regalado campaigned on listening to neighborhoods for a change and limiting 'big projects' that destroy neighborhoods", said Knoefler, "maybe he can rein in the CRA and the City Unsafe Structures dept. to stop this outrage against one of the most historic parts of Miami."

JUDGE ISSUES TEMPORARY STAY, CRA CRITICIZED FOR NOT FUNDING CLEANUP REQUEST

2010-03-03T21:57:00.000-08:00

As reported by a WSVN Channel 7 News report, Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr ordered a temporary stay to the demolition of three historic buildings in Overtown Tuesday until a full hearing could be held within two weeks. "the order is more than a year old," she said, "I don't see a rush to demolish it now." However, no one can enter the building until the formal hearing, which means that the Apostolic Revival Church is without a home, albeit temporarily. For Pastor Allen of the Temple, it was just another consequence of the misrepresentation by the City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency of the two different buildings, one abandoned and the other structurally sound and containing the church as one and the same. "This is not the church." he said frustratingly pointing to a picture of the abandoned building next door, "THIS is the church."

The CRA, meanwhile continued its campaign to categorize the three very different properties as "the building", "overrun by drug addicts", "locks can't even keep out the crime" and a "liability to the City" which was echoed in the news media. "It might come down at any time" said the City Attorney after the Judge's ruling. "I guess that's why we have a City Agency Director inviting the news media and camera crews inside the building for tours every day, why isn't that a liability to the City?" said Brad Knoefler, whose organization applied for a CRA emergency grant more than a week ago that would have cleaned up and secured the property against tresspassers, the very things the CRA claim make it urgently need to be demolished.

Countering the media spin, Doris Hall, spokesperson for the owner of the property, blasted the CRA in a letter to Jim Villacorta today:

Mr. Villacorta, if the urgency of the demolition requests stems from the public liability from people entering the property and the trash strewn around the property, why would you not allocate funds on an emergency basis, as you are allowed to fund up to $4,500 without Board approval. Would this not be considered negligence on your part, since your CRA Trust fund is holding over $70 Million Dollars needing to be reinvested with the taxpayers and residents in Overtown to create jobs and revitalization of these properties? We believe that this illustrates that the true intent of the CRA is to demolish and acquire the properties through an eminent domain-like procedure in violation of Federal, State and local laws, in order to assemble the remaining parcels for a large development.

Later on that evening, The Apostolic Revival Temple held its regular Wednesday serivce and feeding of the homeless in the small park across from the church. "God has not said the church will be demolished." he said, "The word of God has not spoken." The turnout was low due to the cold, but one man, Barry Moore, caretaker of the church who now must sleep on the street due to the Judge's order , appeared unfazed. "At least I've got plenty of blankets", he said with a smile.

EMERGENCY HEARING SET, CRA CONTINUES TO HARASS CHURCH

2010-03-01T23:00:00.000-08:00

The battle to save the Historic Mitchell Rooming House continued today and over the weekend. In an attempt to raise awareness of the issue, activists placed banners depicting the Michell Rooming House in all its glory with the caption "Save Historic Overtown". The Apostolic Revival Temple held its potentially last service on Sunday, which was covered by WSVN Channel 7 News. Inside the service, the Pastor reassured his church that the demolition of the building would not be the end of the church. "What is important here is the word of God," said the Pastor, "we need to submit to the word of God, and it will lead us." he said.

Meanwhile the City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency continued its harassment campaign to force the church to move out. "Mr Villacorta, the Director of the CRA, telephoned over the weekend to say the electricity would be cut off, but I keep calling FPL and they say they have received no cut off order." said Pastor Allen of the Temple "the CRA also said I need to move out by Monday but we still have received no eviction notice from the City and they have not began closing off the sidewalk and securing the site so we don't know what to believe," he said.

Early Monday morning the police were called to the site when the banners depicting the historic building were vandalized by City of Miami CRA employees at the behest of the CRA Director, Jim Villacorta. "I asked him with what authority he was destroying the banners and he told me he had all the authority he needs.have them removed." said Pastor Allen." Local activists were shocked that historical photos put up to to inform the community of the preservation issue were destroyed by City of Miami employees. "how can the government vandalize private property and violate our right of free speech in this day and age," said Bradley Knoefler, member of the group. The group plans to file charges and potentially request a restraining order against Mr. Villacorta.

On the legal front, the request for an Emergency hearing on the demolition order was agreed to by Judge Manno-Schurr today and will be held at the Dade County Courthouse room 1105 on March 2 at 9:30AM. Any person involved or concerned with this issue is invited to attend.

The local media interest in the story continues to increase, with a report airing on WPLG local 10 News, CBS 4 News and live report from WSVN Channel 7 News. The news reports continue to claim based on information from the CRA that the two properties are one building, even though they are two separate folios and very different structures. Knoefler also criticized what he called the CRA spin campaign of misinformation. "here they are wearing gas masks to try to scare people and they use the same two developers who want to build there in all the news reports, referring to them as 'local businessmen' and 'concerned resident". he stated. "At least tomorrow the facts will come out."

On another note, evicted residents began moving out of the building Sunday night located just down the street at 1000 NW 10th st, also slated for demolition, and the CRA began targeting the historic Thomas law building across tha street from the Church. "The Overtown I knew is around eighty five percent gone", said 67 year resident Rosa Green, "if they keep it up at this rate we'll will never be able to recover."

CHURCH, OWNER FILE $17 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY OF MIAMI, LAST SERVICE SUNDAY AT 11:00 AM

2010-02-27T13:32:00.000-08:00

The owner and tenant of the threatened Overtown properties filed a last minute legal action Friday against the City of Miami CRA, the City of Miami and Miami Dade County requesting a stay of the demolition order slated for the morning of Monday, March 1. The suit also requested $17 million in damages. The action claims that the City acted "in clear error" by grouping three buildings together and selectively showing pictures of only the damaged buildings to the Unsafe Structures Board, not the stucturally sound building at 1024 NW 2nd Ave currently occupied by the Apostolic Revival Temple, the tenant of the building. The Defendants are also accused of violating Federal Fair Housing laws by "redlining, blockbusting, racial profiling, forced gentrification and non-provision of temporary relocation; manufacturing of slum and blight," using eminent domain-like actions in violation of State Law as well as acting contrary to their own Redevelopment Plan which calls for "preserving and revitalizing historically significant stuctures in the redevelopment area.". A Fair Housing Complaint was filed with the DC office of US HUD late Friday as well.

Meanwhile the City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency seems determined to charge ahead with the demolition. A PR spin campaign was launched with a WSVN Channel 7 News report which showed the CRA Director donning a gas mask to justify the demolition of the property while barely mentioning the Pastor's building and the large development project in the works. Phil Bacon, the developer who wants to buy the property, posed as representing 'local business interests' and stated that "When buildings get into these conditions, they are simply economically irretrievable" This is despite the proposal on the table to stabilize the property and allow revitaization for $25,000 when the CRA has allocated $46,502 to demolish them. "I can't understand why they can't delay the demolition to explore preserving the properties," said Derek Cole, Board member of the Overtown Community Oversight Board (OCOB), "As a community we voted unanimously to request a stay of execution and so far the CRA has ignored the wishes of the Community." Irby McKnight, community activist and past Chariman of OCOB, also wrote to Commissioner Dunn to express concerns about the demolition of the properties. David Chiverton, past candidate for City Commissioner, has expressed his support for saving the buildings.

Bradley Knoefler, president of a local neighborhood group, said "the CRA themselves own a property located at 1201 NW 3rd Avenue that has been declared an unsafe structure. They also treat their own tenants very differently, requesting a $260,000 grant to relocate their current tenant, Two Guys Restaurant. "Where's the demolition order on the CRA owned property? probably because they plan on putting a big development there and can control it." At a meeting last Wednesday to discuss the demolition, Irby McKnight said "Back in the 1970's, when we were setting up the CRA, we thought that they would look out for the interests of the community - now we see that they are acting contrary to the community's needs."

The Apostolic Reveval Temple plans to hold its potentially last service tomorrow at 11:00 AM in spite of the Redevelopment Agency. "We still are unsure what is going as we have still not received a single thing in writing from the City", said Pastor Allen of the Temple. The CRA Director called me late last night to tell to say they were cutting off electricity today but FPL tells me they have no order to do so. It would be a shame to have our last service in the dark because the CRA cut off our electicity." Several local media outlets plan on attending the service tomorrow, and concerned residents are planning on rallying behind the Pastor.

"We would invite anyone who is concerned about preserving what is left of the Overtown Community to attend and show your support." said Pastor Allen. He also appeared unfazed at the intimidation efforts of the Community Redevelopment Agency. I'm here in the ghetto and have dealt with much worse than this in my lifetime," he said, "we will be right here Monday morning when the bulldozers come."

The Apostolic Revival Church is located at 1024-1028 NW 2nd Ave, Miami, Fl in the CRA named "Historical Overtown" neighborhood. Service is at 11:00 AM

Photos Courtesy of The Black Archives History and Research Foundation of South FL, Inc./Historic Overtown Building Photographic Collection.

Community mobilizes to save Overtown Historic buildings and prevent eviction of local church

2010-02-24T22:50:00.000-08:00

In a heated meeting of The Historic Overtown Folklife District Improvement Association (HOFDIA), this afternoon, members of the community squared off against the City of Miami CRA in an attempt to stay a demolition order for three historic properties located at 1020 NW 2nd Ave, 1024 NW 2nd Ave. and 163 NW 11th St. in the Historic Overtown neighborhood. The properties, while not officially desgnated historic, have special significance for many in the community. The NW 2nd Ave site once was the Mitchell Rooming House and Phillip Alan Billiards. The NW 11th street property once was Moe's Garage. The destruction of the few remaining historic properties in Overtown has been opposed my many in the community, including Dr. Dorothy Fields, prominent local Preservationist and founder of the Black Archives.

Also at stake is the fate of the Apostolic Revival Temple, at the location for 13 years, and holding service for more than 100 local residents every Sunday.

On Feb 11, the Miami CRA passed ordinance 10-00147 to allocate $46,502 of Community Redevelopment funds to demolish the three buildings. At the meeting the property owner, Rev Nevins, a prominent local figure who was co-founder of the St Johns Baptist Church, pleaded with the CRA not to demolish the properties. "I have been seriously ill for more than a year", he said "The roof caught on fire and the insurance the City recommended to me wouldn't pay so I need more time to save the buildings".

Last Thursday the Overtown Community Advisory Board (OCAB), the official Representation Board for the community unanimously resolved to write to City to request a 30 day stay of the demolition order in order to give the Reverend more time to save the buildings.

"We don't know what's going on", said Rev Allen, Pastor of the Apostolic Revival Temple, "a couple of weeks ago, the CRA said that they wouldn't demolish our building and now this morning an inspector came by and said that they were demolishing the building March 1, in less than 5 days. We have received no legal notice nor offer of relocation assistance from either the City or the CRA", said the Pastor. The Temple sent an urgent request to Mayor Regalado requesting a stay of the demolition order stating:

"The building is in no way unsafe or unsound. There is electricity, running water, and we hold services at the site on a regular basis. Apart from minor roof leaks, we fail to understand why the City would consider this property an unsafe structure and issue a demolition order".
Some think that there may have been misleading information provided leading to confusion with the issuance of the demolition order, as the CRA Backup information only included photos of the two abandoned buildings, not the property occupied by the church. This could have led the Board to think that all three of the properties were in the same condition, which they are not. An independent structural engineer stated "This property (1024 NW 2nd Ave) appears to be structurally sound and is currently occupied by a church ."

The letter also put the City on notice for potential violations of Federal and State law and claimed the City was "racially profiling" "redlining" "block busting" and "in violation of US HUD fair housing laws."

Back at the HOFDIA meeting tempers flared, with the both the executive Director of the CRA and the Overtown NETS adminstrator storming out of the room. "back in the 1970's, when we were setting up the CRA, we thought that they would look out for the interests of the community" Said Irby McKnight, Community Activist, "now we see that they are acting contrary to the community's needs."

Timothy Barber, Director of the Black Archives, highlighted the importance of preservation "a large part of the Overtown economy is based on tourism. By destroying these buildings you begin to lose the sense of the historic community that is so important to Overtown."

Two other options were discussed:
(1) A proposal from the OMNI/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (OPWRA) to stabilize the damaged properties, clean up debris in and around the property, and secure the building to allow a revitalization project and (2) a potential acquisition of the property to preserve the facade and incorporate it into a larger development by St. John's CDC.

"what I don't understand is how they can allocate $46,502 slated for 'Redvelopment' to demolish a building when there are other options" said Bradley Knoefler, President of OPWRA "for about the same amount of money, the property can be cleaned up, structurally stabilized, certified safe by an engineer, and the renovation project jump started. We have the Temple who wants to run a rooming house for the disadvantaged along with a Community Center as well as a restaurant interested so this is both a valid and better option for the community"

Clarence Woods, Assistant Director of the CRA defended the agency's position "the City, not the CRA issued the demolition order, all we are doing is paying for it." He recommended that the Community speak with elected officials. " the CRA Board and the City Commission approved this and they are the ones who can stop it. This is definately above my pay grade"

Elected officials, are you listening? Please help save these Historic and Black-Owned properties from the "Redevelopment Machine" and respect the wishes of the community, not the big developers, as has been the case too often in the past. We count on you to do the right thing.

To be continued..

Photos Courtesy of The Black Archives History and Research Foundation of South FL, Inc./Historic Overtown Building Photographic Collection.

Miami-Dade County issues harsh audit of Homestead CRA, ignores City of Miami CRA's

2010-02-22T12:09:00.000-08:00

As reported by Eyeonmiami, (Eyeonmiami Homestead CRA, Homestead CRA) Miami-Dade County recently issued an audit report that, surprise, found the following irregularities:

"among other things, CRA officials failed to provide substantive evidence of job creation, business expansion, or affordable housing development activities"

"Also, the auditors have cited several questionable transactions involving former elected officials and others"

"for example, land containing 44 dilapidated "shotgun houses" was acquired at what appears to be an above-market price of $1.9 million from a company associated with former Mayor Steve Shriver. The houses were demolished and two years later the CRA has no specific plans for development."

"further, the CRA disbursed monies to entities with little or no accountability. A not-for-profit entity allied with former Mayor Steve Shriver was paid $401,000 to promote the City's Historic Downtown District. The contract was later cancelled due to performance issues."

Sound familiar? The OMNI/Park West Redevelopment Association submitted a 120 page complaint to the County in October 2009 (Formal complaint) alleging that the City of Miami CRA's had similar violations of Florida Statute 163 pt III, which requires tax increment funds used by the CRA's for redevelopment purposes to be used to reduce slum and blight. The City of Miami CRA's have a similar trackrecord of non-implementation and non-performance of the legally binding Redevelopment Plan, and this complaint formally requested a legal and performance audit. The County replied that staff has reviewed the City of Miami CRA's and found no reason to undergo a performance audit at this time (MDC-Manager-Response-to-Formal-Audit-request). A follow up e-mail to Commissioner Edmonson of District 3, who oversees the CRA area was ignored (Edmonson e-mail)

I wonder aloud what the reason one CRA is treated so harshly and another, with much more money at stake and the potential to adversely affect tens of thousands of downtown residents, is treated with kid gloves?

Can we say Global Agreement? It appears that the inter-local agreement (Global Agreement) whereby the City and the County share responsibility for funding the Marlins Stadium, Performing Arts Center, Port Tunnel, Street Car and Musuem Park has so much at stake that neither the City or the County wish to rock the boat by investigating the City of Miami CRA's.

In the meantime, property owners and residents continue to live in an environment not-dissimilar to a third world county. The several Billion dollars of property owned within the CRA boundaries continues to be adversely affected by the non-implementation of the Redevelopment plan and the "shell game' of reallocating funds to projects that have little impact on the reduction of slum and blight.

We certainly hope that the County will treat ALL CRA's with the same strict standards. The poorest residents and neighborhoods in Miami-Dade County have been neglected for far too long. Its time to truly redevelop our blighted neighborhoods or, as some suggest, get rid of the CRA's for good.

QUOTES FROM CRA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN RE:HISTORIC PRESERVATION

2010-02-20T16:51:00.000-08:00

I. Community Heritage and Historic Preservation
1. Renovation of Historically Significant Buildings
Overtown: The CRA proposes to build on the historic character of the area by preserving and revitalizing historically significant structures in redevelopment Area. Projects will be implemented following the completion of the designation of the significant historic structures for rehabilitation. The Black Archives, History & Research Foundation of South Florida, Inc.’s Master Plan identifies the following objectives as a guide in the redevelopment process:
• Effectively communicate information and develop broad based awareness and appreciation of historic achievements of the African-American community through exhibits, special events, tours, and the media.

• Develop a magnet area within the target community for the purposes of: (1) reestablishing a special identity for Culmer-Overtown by focusing one era in its history, the "Little Broadway" jazz era; (2) to establish interest in the Afro-Caribbean heritage by encouraging tourism, trade and cultural exchanges. Develop these themes to attract night clubs and restaurants; programming special cultural events, designing signs, street furniture and public plaza spaces; and creating promotional literature for tourism and local marketing• Preserve, where feasible, surviving buildings which represent important links to persons, activities or events of major significance in the past. • Encourage new development to incorporate uses which would contribute to the vitality of the district such as stores, nightclubs, restaurants, theaters.

• Encourage new buildings to incorporate selected design elements from the past which reflect special cultural or thematic feelings which are relevant today and should be re-established. Consideration will be given to the preservation of all of the identified historic buildings, wherever structural conditions and cost of rehabilitation might be favorable.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me - we certainly hope that this is not included in the plan as "window dressing" to satisfy state statutes with no real intent to do so. Elements of the plan are there as a roadmap to be implemented, not ignored.

To be continued.

CITY OF MIAMI TO DEMOLISH HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND DISPLACE LOCAL CHURCH...

2010-02-19T14:56:00.000-08:00

We are very concerned about the plan of the City of Miami, the Collins Center, and the Overtown CRA to demolish two historic properties located at 1020 and 1024 NW 2nd ave. A demolition order has been issued and the City plans to destroy these buildings next week. One of the buildings is occupied by a local church of 13 years, who will then have no location to provide services to the community.

The underlying motivation for this effort are the plans for the Collins Center, who owns nearly all of the properties on the surrounding block through their land trust, to assemble properties for another large new development, as they have done for the past ten years. The Collins Center land trust, created with funding from the Knight foundation, is now the second largest property owner in Overtown, after the City of Miami CRA. The stated purpose of the land trust is to "ensure that current residents aren't dislocated once real revitalization efforts begin"

In 2001, the Knight foundation staff asked leaders of the Collins Center for Public Policy, the Local Initiatives Support Corp. and the Trust for Public Land, each of whom had received Knight grants, to collaborate on improving housing, home ownership and the physical character of Overtown. A total of $8.3 million in grants were issued to the three organizations for this purpose. The Foundation's own analysis states:

"Six years after the first Knight checks were written, Collins and LISC have so far had limited success. The best symbol of this seeming inaction so far is Sawyer's Walk – also called Crosswinds, after Crosswinds Communities, the Michigan-based developer brought in to spearhead the 1,000-condominium project. From its inception, this proposed housing and retail development has been mired in public controversy"

The southern part of Overtown has been largely demolished, with few of the original buildings remaining. Most of the property is owned by the CRA and the Collins Center, who have promised large development projects for years but have not completed one project to date. Our concern is that this strategy of demolition and land assembly is now moving northward up NW 2nd avenue, where the few remaining buildings of the original Overtown remain.

F.S. 163 pt III, which governs the Community Redevelopment Agencies, stresses revitalization of existing properties to prevent forced gentrification by destroying existing buildings and replacing them with new developments that will displace current residents. HUD guidelines state that federal dollars be focused on renovation of existing properties for the same reasons.

Given the above, it makes sense to raise the following questions:

- Why does the Collins Center continue to purchase land which they never develop? If they have sufficient funding (from the Knight Foundation) to purchase land, why don't they use that money to develop the properties they already own?

- Why would the Knight Foundation continue to fund an organization which by its own admission "has had limited success" and may be working contrary to the Knight Foundation's own stated goals?

- How did the City of Miami determine that the properties located at 1020 NW 2nd ave,1024 NW 2nd ave, and 163 NW 11th st are "unsafe structures"? 1024 NW 2nd ave is fine apart from a leaking roof and occupied by a local church. 163 NW 11th st is structurally fine and secured, but has no roof. 1020 NW 2nd, is definately unsafe but simply needs to have the collapsed roof removed and stabilized structurally - but it can be saved.

- Why would the CRA allocate $46,502 for the demolition of these properties when the same funds can be used to repair the roof at 1024 NW 2nd and remove the collapsed portions of wood from the fire at 1020 NW 2nd?

- Why is the City so urgently trying to move forward on the demolition? The owner, Reverend Nevin who has been hospitalized for the past eight months, literally got out of his sickbed to beg the City not to demolish the properties. The Overtown Community Advisory Board passed a resolution from the community requesting a 30 day stay to allow the community and the owner to mobilize in order to save the properties. The Black Archives and various community groups have also requested a stay in the demolition order in order to complete their documentation of the historical nature of the buildings.

- What is the position of the District 5 appointed commissioner on this issue? Given the temporary nature of his appointment, it is understandable that he would not take a strong position either way. However, giving an extra 30 days to one of the few remaining African American property owners in the neighborhood to save his historic building is not too much to ask and has been requested by the community as noted above.

Its time to finally redevelop one of our most historic communities FOR REAL this time. The cycle of demolition, land assembly, and big developments that never are completed needs to stop. We need to redevelop our neighborhoods "one lot at a time" as has been highlighted and embraced by our new Mayor. If the present trends continue, Overtown in a few years will consist entirely of vacant lots "waiting" for public monies to fund mega-projects that may never be built. We can then kiss any sense of the grand history of this neighborhood goodbye.

REDEVELOPMENT PART TWO: THE REDEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT

2010-01-31T16:21:00.000-08:00

The Myth Of Economic Development

Chapter 7

"Economic Development" is a common cliché among city governments and redevelopment agencies.

It refers to a belief that tax subsidies to selected private businesses can stimulate the local economy. It assumes that the free enterprise system alone is inadequate. It presumes that government planners can allocate resources more efficiently than can the free market.

The legal purpose for redevelopment remains the elimination of blight. All economic development activities must pay lip service toward that goal. Behind this façade, redevelopment has subsidized giant retailers, luxury hotels, golf courses, stadiums and even gambling casinos.

Has redevelopment succeeded in reducing true blight? By what objective standard can this be measured?

Any definition of blight must include depressed local economies and pockets of poverty. If redevelopment is working, then surely poverty is being reduced and the general standard of living improving.

Is there any evidence this is happening? Are residents of cities with redevelopment better off compared to residents of cities without redevelopment?

They aren't.

Are the 359 cities that have created redevelopment agencies any better off than those 102 cities that have not? If redevelopment is eliminating blight, then certainly comparisons between such cities could prove it.

They can't.

If redevelopment was improving local economies, then such a comparison would show greater personal income growth in cities that do have redevelopment relative to those cities that do not.

It doesn't.

Table V is a comparison of combined average income growth among all cities with redevelopment and those without it, between the years 1979-89. As can be seen, there is no correlation between redevelopment activity and personal income growth.

Table VI directly compares five pairs of cities of similar size, region and economic level. Again, there is no correlation between growth rates and redevelopment activity.

Both Tables V and VI demonstrate that cities without redevelopment either match or actually exceed those cities that do, in terms of personal income-growth.

There is no evidence to show that all the billions spent on redevelopment has done anything to improve the lives of people in those cities. There is no evidence that redevelopment is a positive factor in the elimination of blight.

Eminent Domain For Private Gain

Chapter 8

"Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Thus the Bill of Rights specifies the only purpose for eminent domain: "public use".

Since then, government has used eminent domain to acquire land for public use. Roads, schools, parks, military bases, and police stations were essential public facilities that took priority over individual property rights. Private real estate transactions, on the other hand, were always voluntary agreements between individuals.

Redevelopment has changed all that.

Under redevelopment, "public use" now includes privately owned shopping centers, auto malls and movie theaters. "Public use" is now anything a favored developer wants to do with another individual's land. Eminent domain is used to effect what once were purely private transactions.

Its use nearly always favors large developers at the expense of small property owners. In a typical redevelopment project, a developer is given an "exclusive negotiating agreement," or the sole right to develop property still owned by others.

Once such an agreement is made, small property owners are pressured to sell to the redevelopment agency, which acquires the land on behalf of the developer. If refused, the agency holds a public hearing to determine "public need and necessity" to impose eminent domain. By law, this must be an impartial hearing. In reality, the agency has already committed itself to acquire the property for the developer, so there is little doubt of the outcome.

Whole areas of cities have been acquired, demolished and handed over to developers to recreate in their own image. Historic buildings, local businesses and unique neighborhoods are replaced by generic developments devoid of the special flavor that once gave communities their identity.

Typical is the experience of Anaheim. Having demolished its historic central business district in the mid-1970s, the redevelopment agency recently hired consultants to help restore the identity of a downtown that no longer exists. "The complete eradication of the traditional business district has left nothing for the community to relate to as their downtown," admits an internal city memo.

Small business owners are compensated and relocated, but often in distant areas far from their established customer base. Cut off from the community that nurtured them, they often cannot survive.

Small property owners have little chance to participate in redevelopment projects. Consultants and redevelopment planners prefer to work with one huge parcel under a single ownership. Entrepreneurs and homeowners just get in the way.

Indeed, one of the definitions of blight is that of "irregularly shaped lots with multiple ownerships," to be solved by "consolidating parcels" for an outside developer to control. The variety of land owners and uses that gives cities their individuality becomes an excuse for expropriation.

Legislative attempts to protect small property owners have all been derailed by pro- redevelopment forces in Sacramento. Eminent domain is defended as a tool of "last resort." Yet eminent domain lies at the heart of the coercion that makes redevelopment possible-and destructive.

The Redevelopment Establishment

Chapter 9

Redevelopment is an entrenched special interest. It thrives on contributions from its beneficiaries and from lack of awareness of the general public. Its advocate is the California Redevelopment Association, a Sacramento-based lobby that seeks to protect and expand redevelopment power.

The CRA claims to represent the interests of cities. It is, in fact, a self-perpetuating money machine that reacts against any reforms that would diminish its power. The CRA's annual budget now tops $1.6 million. Its Executive Director draws $156,200 annually in total compensation. Its contract lobbyist will be paid $122,800 this year, though the CRA is only one of his several clients.

The public has no voice in CRA operations or policies. The CRA is governed by its seven officers and a 12-member board. All are redevelopment agency administrators. None are elected officials. The CRA is operated by redevelopment insiders to serve their interests. Good public policy is the last of its concerns.

The real beneficiaries of redevelopment are not local communities, which must bid against each other for corporate retailers. They are not individual citizens, who have seen their property rights eroded as public debts mount.

The real beneficiaries are those employed by redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment staff controls agency agendas and recommends agency actions. Agency members-usually elected city councils-often rely more on their staff than on their own judgement. Though simple to understand, redevelopment is often presented as too complex for ordinary elected officials-and citizens-to comprehend.

The real beneficiaries, too, are the consultants, lawyers, bond brokers and developers who create, finance, advise, build and otherwise make vast sums from redevelopment projects.

They are easy to find. The California Redevelopment Association's 1996 Directory lists as members 25 commercial development companies, 26 bond brokers, 37 law offices and 101 separate consulting firms. Together, they form redevelopment's core constituency and its only profit-center.

Among these companies are California's biggest developers, priciest law firms and some of Wall Street's most powerful brokerage houses. They are relied on by public officials for "expertise" which is always geared to expanding redevelopment power. They are the donors to the CRA's political action committee, which supports compliant state and local lawmakers. Thus, the tax increment is recycled into political contributions.

What also allows redevelopment to thrive is the lack of public understanding of what it is and how it operates. By law, redevelopment agencies are an arm of state government, and thus are not subject to the same public overview as are those of the counties, school districts and cities. This isolation has spawned activities that would never be tolerated by any other government agency.

REDEVELOPMENT PART ONE: BLIGHT MAKES RIGHT

2010-01-01T15:55:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from "Redevelopment: The Unknown Government" Check out the full article at Redevelopment.com

Very Interesting how the same thing that is happening all around the country is duplicated in Miami.

The Unknown Government

Chapter 1

There is an unknown layer of government in California, which few understand.
This unknown government currently consumes 8 percent of all property taxes statewide, $1.5 billion in 1997. It has a total indebtedness of over $41 billion.
It is supported by a powerful Sacramento lobby, backed by an army of lawyers, consultants, bond brokers and land developers.
Unlike new counties, cities and school districts, it can be created without a vote of the citizens affected.

Unlike other levels of government, it can incur bonded indebtedness without voter approval.

Unlike other government entities, it may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private interests.

This unknown government provides no public services. It does not educate our children, maintain our streets, protect us from crime, nor stock our libraries.

It claims to eliminate blight and promote economic development, yet there is no evidence it has done so in the half century since it was created.

Indeed, it has become a rapidly growing drain on California's public resources, amassing enormous power with little public awareness or oversight.

This unknown government is Redevelopment.

It is time Californians knew more about it.

State law allows a city council to create a redevelopment agency to administer one or more "project areas" within its boundaries. An area may be small, or it can encompass the entire city.

These project areas are governed by a redevelopment agency with its own staff and governing board, appointed by the city council.

Thus, an agency and city may appear to be one entity. Often city councils appoint themselves as agency members, with council meetings doubling as redevelopment meetings. Legally, however, a redevelopment agency is an entirely separate government authority, with its own revenue, budget, staff and expanded powers to issue debt and condemn private property.

Out of California's 471 cities, 359 have created redevelopment agencies. No vote of the residents affected was required. No review by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) was done.

Californians often confuse redevelopment with federal "urban renewal" projects typical of large eastern cities of the 1940s-'60s. Sadly, the methods and results are often similar. Yet redevelopment is a state-authorized layer of government without federal funds, rules or requirements. It is entirely within the power of the California legislature and voters to control, reform, amend or abolish.

Blight Makes Right

Chapter 2

All a city need do to justify creation or expansion of a redevelopment area is to declare it "blighted".

This is easily done. State law is so vague that most anything has been designated as "blight". Parkland, new residential areas, professional baseball stadiums, oil fields, shopping centers, orange groves, open desert and dry riverbeds have all been designated as "blight" for redevelopment purposes.

To make a finding of blight, a consultant is hired to conduct a study. New redevelopment areas are largely driven by city staff, who choose the consultant with the approval of the city council. Consultants know their job is not to determine if there is blight, but to declare blighted whatever community conditions may be.

Blight has been discovered in some of California's most affluent cities. Indian Wells, a guard-gated community with an average $210,000 household income, has two separate redevelopment areas.

Understandably, many homeowners fear an official designation of blight will hurt property values. Small property owners fear redevelopment's use of eminent domain. Building permits can also be denied if an applicant does not conform precisely to the redevelopment plan. So, local citizen groups often challenge the blight findings in court. Others are challenged by counties and school districts which stand to lose major property tax revenue if a new redevelopment area is created.

Recent state legislation has tightened definitions of blight, particularly those involving open and agricultural land. Yet, enforcement is lax, legal challenges costly and most agencies were already created long before recent reform attempts.

Once the consultant's blight findings are ratified, a city may create or expand a redevelopment area. Voter approval is never asked.

Citizens can force a vote by gathering 10% of the signatures of all registered voters within 30 days of the council action. Where this has occurred, redevelopment nearly always loses by wide margins (rejected in Montebello by 82%, La Puente by 67%, Los Alamitos by 55%, Half Moon Bay by 76%, for example).

The requirements to force a vote are difficult to meet, however. In the vast majority of cases, a popular vote is never held. Rather, the consultant's findings of blight are quickly certified. A law firm is then retained to draw up the paperwork and defend against legal challenges.

A growing number of law firms specialize in redevelopment. Like the consultants, they are members of the California Redevelopment Association, a Sacramento-based lobby. They are listed in the CRA's directory and advertise in its newsletter. Their livelihood depends on the aggressive use of redevelopment and increasingly imaginative definitions of blight.

To eliminate alleged blight, a redevelopment agency, once created, has four extraordinary powers held by no other government authority:

) Tax Increment: A redevelopment agency has the exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues ("tax increment") generated in its designated project areas.

) Bonded Debt: An agency has the power to sell bonds secured against future tax increment, and may do so without voter approval.

) Business Subsidies: An agency has the power to give public money directly to developers and other private businesses in the form of cash grants, tax rebates, free land or public improvements.

) Eminent Domain: An agency has expanded powers to condemn private property, not just for public use, but to transfer to other private owners.

These four powers represent an enormous expansion of government intrusion into our traditional system of private property and free enterprise. Let us carefully consider the costs of this power and if it has done anything to eliminate real blight.

Debt: Play Now, Pay Later

Chapter 4

It is troubling enough that redevelopment agencies divert property taxes from real public needs. But that is only part of the story.

By law, for a redevelopment agency to begin receiving property taxes, it must first incur debt. In fact, property tax revenues may only be used to pay off outstanding debt. Pay-as-you-go is not part of redevelopment law or philosophy.

Debt is not just a temptation. It is a requirement.

That is why redevelopment hearings inevitably feature three groups of outside "experts": the blight consultants, the lawyers, and the bond brokers who help the agency incur debt so it can start receiving the tax increment.

The bond brokers and debt consultants are easily located. They are listed in the California Redevelopment Association Directory. From city to city they phone, fax, travel and make presentations to sell additional debt. Naturally, redevelopment staffs are supportive. More debt means job security and larger payrolls.

Currently, total redevelopment indebtedness in California tops $41 billion, a figure that is doubling every five years (Table II).

Debt levels vary widely among agencies, but all must have debt to receive the tax increment. Table III shows those cities with the highest total redevelopment indebtedness. Debt levels have no relation with actual blight, as many affluent suburban towns have higher indebtedness than older urban-core cities.

Table IV shows outstanding indebtedness per-capita.

This is the amount of per-capita property taxes that must be paid to cover the principal and interest of existing debt. This amount must be diverted from the cities, counties and school districts before these redevelopment agencies can shut down and restore the property taxes to those entities.

One would expect that if redevelopment agencies had been successful in eliminating "blight," they would now be scaling back their activities and reducing debt. In fact, redevelopment indebtedness is growing rapidly, draining investment money that could have gone to buy other government bonds or into the private sector.

There are two reasons redevelopment debt is so attractive: First, redevelopment agencies may sell bonded debt without voter approval. Unlike the state, counties and school districts, the debts need not be justified to, or approved by, the taxpayers. A quick majority vote by the agency is all that is needed.

Second, bond brokers love to sell redevelopment debt. The commissions are high and the buyers plentiful. Since the debt is secured against future property tax revenue, they are seen as secure and lucrative. If an agency over-extends, then surely the city's general fund will cover the debts.

Most agencies project that ever-rising property tax increments will cover future debt service. During the 1990s, however, much of California's commercial and residential real estate declined in value. Property owners sought and received lower assessments, creating a crisis for those agencies banking on ever-rising property taxes. Some cities raided their general funds to service redevelopment debt.

Legally, it is unclear whether the state or individual cities are liable to bail out actually bankrupt agencies, but the expanding bubble of redevelopment debt must be a concern to all.

Redevelopment agencies typically issue new bonds to pay off existing ones, thus rolling over and compounding interest payments. This cannot go on indefinitely. Eventually, all existing debt must be paid with real tax dollars. Every dollar that must pay for this debt is a dollar that will not be spent on police, education and other pressing public needs.

The only way to avoid these ballooning interest payments is to stop issuing new debt and pay off existing principal as soon as possible. Chapter 11 explains exactly how this could be done.

City of Miami: Please let us participate in Redevelopment plan modifications as required by State law.

2009-09-29T00:13:00.000-07:00

OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION

Dear Commissioners,
Last week we attended the Special CRA meeting in order to comment on the utter lack of public participation in this plan. Even Commissioner Sarnoff, sitting commissioner for the OMNI area, stated on the record that after three years in office, the first time he had seen the new redevelopment plan was at the beginning of last week.
The item was deferred to the October CRA meeting and it was mentioned that a town hall meeting would be held to discuss the plan with the community. We thought the matter was done. You can imagine we were surprised to receive notice, less than 24 hours before this meeting, of the same item. We feel that this is unacceptable and does not constitute proper public notice and would like to put on the record that we formally contest the validity of this meeting.

F.S 163, which governs Community redevelopment, clearly states:

(2) The governing body shall hold a public hearing on a proposed modification of any community redevelopment plan after public notice thereof by publication in a newspaper having a general circulation in the area of operation of the agency.

On page two of the 2009 plan introduction, it states clearly that the last public meetings on this plan were held in April and May or 2005. Well, a lot has changed since then and the plan has obviously been updated – hence the title 2009 update.

This is supposedly a slightly modified version of the 2006 Zyscovich plan. Where are the changes vs this plan? What has changed? How is the community to evaluate a major change to the redevelopment plan with no public hearing or presentation?

I would like to read you an excerpt from page three of the 1986 Omni redevelopment plan:

A citizen’s advisory Committee was established to provide input to the master plan. This group includes representatives from the Omni neighborhood and provides a forum where interested citizens, civic leaders, and public officials join forces to address development issues and community concerns. During a series of workshops, held over a six-month period, a draft downtown policy plan has been formulated.

This was the process back in 1986. Why, in 2009, are we being asked to approve a plan released only days ago which has had absolutely no public participation and community input? This potential violation of State law should be taken seriously by the City.

And let’s look at the plan itself:

Much has been made of the fact that even though things like giving $11.5 Million of public funds to the Miami Herald, $18 million of redevelopment money to fund the boondoggle streetcar project, and $4.5 Million to build parking for the PAC are in the plan – and not supported by the community and even the district Commissioner – they are not set in stone.

Why even approve such a plan against the wishes of public officials and stakeholders? If there was a 20 foot tall stature of Manny Diaz in the plan that will never get built, would you approve it today?

F.S 163 requires that Community Redevelopment Plans:

(c) Provide for the development of affordable housing in the area, or state the reasons for not addressing in the plan the development of affordable housing in the area.

Why is there no affordable housing component in the plan?

Where is the revitalization component of the plan? Why are we not rehabbing existing housing rather than constructing more big developments to forcibly gentrify the neighborhood?

Is this new plan consistent with the neighborhood comprehensive plan? Where is the study showing this?

Where is the impact study showing the differential impact on the community from this new plan compared to the 1986 plan? The four page impact commentary with standard disclaimers in the back of the plan hardly constitutes a proper impact study.

These are just some of the questions that have come up in the past few days and I think it shows that this plan and its implementation have some serious procedural and legal issues.

Commissioners, this is not a game. These rushed decisions affect our lives and the future of our community. Forcing through the redevelopment plans and the bond issuance without properly involving the community is a mistake, and may be a violation of Florida law. With this time of budget crisis and unfunded liabilities, the City should be extremely careful about not following the correct legal procedures to avoid any additional liabilities.

Please allow us the respect and dignity of properly evaluating this plan and to allow the community to comment and have input as to the future of their neighborhood. We urge you to defer this item until the correct legal procedures, including public hearings and a comment period, are followed.

WHY IS THERE NO REDEVELOPMENT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA?

2009-08-31T00:20:00.000-07:00

Downtown Miami is undergoing a renaissance. As reported in The Herald over recent weeks, dozens of new restaurants and businesses have opened in the Central Business District and Biscayne Blvd North of the Omni is undergoing a strong revival.

However, crossing NE 5th street is like crossing the border from a first world to a third world country. Broken sidewalks, overgrown weeds, collapsing fences, dilapidated parking lots, and very few businesses characterize the neighborhood.

You have just entered the City of Miami’s Community Redevelopment area. Created in 1983, the Southeast Overtown Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW CRA) is charged with collecting RE Taxes on properties located within its boundaries to “eradicate slum and blight..stimulating the creation of new job opportunities for residents, and improving the quality of life”. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on “redevelopment” and increased property values have increased the annual income of the SEOPW CRA to $25.5 million in the recently approved 2010 budget. So what is going on? Why is there no redevelopment taking place in the redevelopment area?

The CRA has a troubled past. The original 1982 Redevelopment Plan promised thousands of affordable housing units and a focus on the area surrounding the Metrorail Station, little which has been implemented. A 2003 Internal Audit by Victor Igwe found that the CRA had wasted millions. A 2005 report by the now defunct Oversight Committee appointed by Commissioner Sanchez found that the CRA spending was not true to its mission of reducing slum and blight, did not take into account neighborhood concerns and social issues, and had a very poor process of selecting vendors and awarding contracts. The Committee’s recommendation was a change in the governing structure by placing private citizens with a detailed knowledge of neighborhood issues and concerns on the CRA Board rather than elected officials with political motivations. A Knight Foundation analysis in 2007 found that the CRA followed a “top down” strategy not taking into account the needs and wants of residents, and “a common vision for Overtown’s redevelopment does not exist, most plans are piecemeal, others lack community support”.

So more than 25 years later where are we? Unfortunately for the long suffering residents of Overtown, little has changed. Of the $72 million combined 2010 budget for both the OMNI and SEOPW CRA’s , more than $50 million was collected but not spent in 2009. Notable examples include of funds not allocated and not spent include $451,490 for Parks and Open Spaces, $220,895 for quality of life, and $524,003 for job creation / economic development. Other items include $830,000 for the yet to be built Bayview Market and a $750,000 balance allocated to the bankrupt Filling Station project. Monies that actually are spent tend to be given to large development projects or “white elephants’ such as the multi million dollar 9th street pedestrian mall, now closed to the public. Then we have the recent $50,000 “shop dine and explore” marketing program consisting of banners on street poles around the neighborhood. Who are we kidding here? Shop at the salvation army?, dine at the homeless shelter? Explore the broken sidewalks? Imagine if the $50,000 was spent to actually repair the sidewalks?

Many Locals and residents who propose valid and beneficial projects to improve their neighborhood are told “funds are limited”, or “we already have plans for the money”, resulting in little job creation and quality of life improvement. There still is a top down, piecemeal approach and slum and blight are far from eradicated – look at the facts on the ground. And, most importantly, the CRA Board still consists entirely of elected officials (one of the few CRA’s in the country with only politicians on the Board).

Against this backdrop the CRA is now proposing a boundary expansion and the issuance of $100 million in bonds. How can you justify taking on another project when the original one is far from being competed? If the $100 million in bonds (which will mortgage the future of the entire neighborhood) is spent in the same manner as in the past, the long term outlook for the neighborhood is dim.

So how do we fix the CRA? Simple – implement the repeated advice of the experts:

• Put an immediate stop to the boundary expansion and $100 million bond issuance until the CRA completes its original mission of eradicating slum and blight. Don’t reward failure.

• Refocus spending on the original plan goals of job creation, reduction of slum and blight, and quality of life (rather than large development projects and consultants) to give residents both economic opportunities and hope in these tough times

• Reallocate funds (such as those for bankrupt development projects) to areas where the community will see a short term benefit, such as job creation and quality of life.

• Listen to the needs and desires of residents and involve them in the budget decision making process – one of the key factors in the 1982 plan

• End political favoritism by setting up objective, measurable criteria for CRA grant issuance that allows anyone meeting the criteria (such as job creation) to receive grants.

• Change the CRA Board to be made up of residents and stakeholders, rather than politicians. This is the only long term solution to alleviate the political shenanigans that have been going on for nearly 30 years.

The City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency has been broken for far too long. We don’t want to be talking about no redevelopment in the redevelopment area 10 years from now - Let’s fix it before its too late.