And here is Kevin O'Connor's version:
If you are not in the mood, and would prefer me to summarize and compare: the law vs. Kevin O'Connor's version, you are in luck. Here we go!
Section 4 of the marketing plan guidelines used by the New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, which is taken from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, includes three elements:
a.
Identify the primary market area in which the project is located. The primary market area
should encompass a population of between 5,000 to 50,000. Identify the racial/ethnic characteristics of the primary market area population using relevant 2000 US Census data.
Kevin got this part right when he said that Woodstock, Olive, Shandaken and Hurley are 20,000 people. He did not speak about identifying the racial/ethnic characteristics of this population using 2000 Census data.
b.
Specify the racial/ethnic group(s) identified in the Census data as least likely to
apply (LLA) for the primary market area. (Groups comprising less than 1% need
not be considered.)
Kevin didn't touch this part...
c.
Identify the secondary market area which, when taken together, will
encompass a minimum population of between 75,000 to 100,000 people. The
secondary market area will be the area and population range used for outreach to
LLA populations, community contacts and general advertising for the project.
Kevin ignored this part also. And, here is where the 75,000 people come in. Apparently Kevin was answering the accusation of the keenly observant Iris York. He claimed that he did not know where this number came from (apart from coming from Iris.)
This, part c, is very important. 75,000 is over half of Ulster County. If RUPCO markets to the above-mentioned four towns, plus Saugerties, plus Kingston, that still does not make 75,000 people.
What Kevin O'Connor was peddling to the people of Woodstock that night was pure fantasy. He said the market for the project was the smaller area. In fact, he named four towns and said "That's who the project is going to." But, the larger area, which is the secondary market, is the area in which the developer must market the project. So, if RUPCO has to market to the larger area, and anybody in the state can apply, how can RUPCO know who the project is going to? Kevin is a con.
Is he going to get away with it? I dunno. Depends on whether the people at the Division of Housing and Community Renewal take any interest in this guy thumbing his nose at their rules.
I will let you know how things turn out.
And finally, if the LEGAL marketing plan is not enough to convince you that Woodstock will not be served by Woodstock Commons, how about this statewide search engine for New York State. Plus, there is a toll-free number with live operator help, in case you do not have internet service.
"Hello, I heard there was subsidized housing in Woodstock! How can I apply?
ACCESSIBILITY/ADAPTABILITY OF UNITS:
NOTE: No later than 90 days prior to engaging in marketing activities, you must register your project with www.NYHousingSearch.gov,a FREE service provided by New York State to
advertise and search for affordable and accessible housing. The service is also available through a
toll-free, bilingual call center at 1-877-428-8844. Representatives are available to assist with listings and searches.
In another day or two, I'll post the other part of Kevin's presentation, when he explains how there will not be a lottery, but then there will, but only so that people don't have accidents rushing to apply for Woodstock Commons.
Kevin O'Connor is clearly lying. Everyone needs to know. Doesn't HE want to go to HEAVEN?
ReplyDeleteThere you go again! Please clarify:
ReplyDelete1) Are the "GUIDELINES" promulgated by DHCR for marketing plans of affordable projects a "law" or are they "guidelines?"
2) If these administrative guidelines are indeed LAW, please cite the section and code.
3) Please identify the specific provisions of the guidelines that you believe RUPCO will not comply with.
4) What do you object to?
a) The guidelines?
b) The immediate 4 town market area?
c) The plan to collect applications at two office locations (in Woodstock & Kingston.)
d) The federal requirement under "Fair Housing" that minorities and "those least likely to apply" be actively solicited to apply, regardless of their current place of residence?
e) The lottery that will determine which of the applicants actually get an apartment, and the order of applicants for the waiting list?
Anonymous is a coward and won't leave his or her name, but the questions are decent, so I will answer them.
ReplyDelete1. The guidelines must be followed to the letter. This is what I was told by somebody at the Fair Housing Office of DHCR. I do not know why they use the term "guidelines." You can call and ask.
2. The guidelines are available for you to read. I included a link to them in the blog post. Try to pay attention.
3. I already explained that. KO said he did not know where the 75,000 number came from, and it came from those guidelines, which are binding. RUPCO must market to 75-100K population area, not the four towns comprising only about 20K people.
4. I object to Kevin saying RUPCO is not going to follow the rules, when there is no way that DHCR will approve the plan that Kevin described at the public hearing.
I guess I can't answer the specific letter choices because they are not applicable. I did not write the policy, nor will I analyze whether or not it is the one I would choose. I only know that KO said he was unfamiliar with part of it, and RUPCO would not follow it.
Next time, Anonymous, your and all other anonymous commenters' comments go straight to the trash. Try to understand and follow the rules SOMEWHERE.
Quote from a letter to the Woodstock Times 2005 written by Sage member Michael Boyle reposted on the SAGE website.
ReplyDelete“ For the record, during a visit to Kevin O'Conner's office, he detailed for
me a selection process that would totally violate the spirit and intent of the Federal Housing Law. He
also offered me a position on the selection committee.
SAGE members are acutely aware of RUPCO's attempts to fool Woodstockers into thinking that all
the residents chosen for Woodstock Commons will be from our community. This is far from the truth.”
This has been one of the central tactics used right through last month’s RUPCO’S Woodstock Times ads falsely suggesting that beloved local widows and employees would be able to have affordable housing if only Woodstock Commons were finished.
Is RUPCO going to give connected locals cheap Woodstock Apts or they are just hustling them? In either case i wonder why they would be doing this. Could it be to suggest that they are going to break or bend the law so that this for profit project can get approval? We will soon find out.