{"id":33,"date":"2020-12-15T12:36:12","date_gmt":"2020-12-15T12:36:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dcfeedback.com\/whj\/?p=33"},"modified":"2020-12-15T13:32:34","modified_gmt":"2020-12-15T13:32:34","slug":"fw-no-on-bill-23-884-yes-park-morton-equity-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/dcfeedback.com\/whj\/2020\/12\/15\/fw-no-on-bill-23-884-yes-park-morton-equity-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"FW: “No” on Bill 23-884, “Yes” Park Morton Equity II"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Subject: “No” on Bill 23-884, “Yes” Park Morton Equity II<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For clarity, the ask of the City Council by The Council @ Park Morton and the Park Morton Equity Team is that Bill 23-884 only be passed as a 120 day temporary bill.   The purpose being avoid starting the entire project over from scratch, while providing time for a negotiated restructure of Park Morton NCI to include the Park Morton Equity Plan and related resident protections and benefits.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This request is not unprecedented, occurs often in these city sponsored public private development deals.  In this is occurred in 2016 when the Strand Theater deal was restructured to include a new equity partner, 86 units of housing including 28 replacement units for the Lincoln Heights NCI project.  <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For Lincoln Heights NCI DMPED brought in a local for profit developer, in the case of B23-884 and Park Morton the ask is to include the residents of Park Morton as equity partners via a resident controlled entity.   The Lincoln Heights developer brought no additional cash or property to the table, but experience and community insight and connections.   Using the same tactic here on behalf of Park Morton residents would not have an significant negative impact in terms on timeline, legalities nor finances, instead would improve\/save the Park Morton NCI project in these areas. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The refusal to consider a temporary approach to B23-884 is primarily a political one, based on prejudices concerning who of deserves “equity”.   Or in this case who does not deserve equity.   It excuses I’ve heard for denying the residents this opportunity to negotiate for “equity” in this project have been shameful, enraging, down right discriminatory and incongruent with facts and evidence. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In September 2016, the Council approved of a 3-month disposition extension (D.C. Act 21-497), to allow time for a public hearing before considering a lengthier extension. This hearing was scheduled to give the Council an opportunity to discuss and overview the latest iteration of the project. Since the initial Strand Theater Redevelopment Plan approval in 2008, the Developer has formed a new partnership with the Warrenton Group and The NHP Foundation, and has created a new development program for the Property that would both address neighborhood needs of quality retail and community space, while also incorporating affordable housing, which was not a component of the original redevelopment plan for the Property.<\/em><\/strong><\/span>
Chairman Phil Mendelson, Committee of the Whole, December 2016, Report on Bill 21-658, “Extension of Time to Dispose of the Strand Theater Act of 2016” <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Without equity, Park Morton residents have NO<\/strong> legal entitlement to their homes under NCI.  Further without a Build-First site the odds of return for residents is about 15% in line with the Hope VI model that NCI was designed to improve upon.   What is really painful is to see the Council continue to give the benefit of the doubt to DMPED, DCHA and the development teams, but not residents.   Although NCI, DCHA, DMPED and developers retread the same people. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For example here’s a list of NCI Directors who have worked for DMPED during the time of Park Morton NCI, 2007 onward.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n