FIFE: [INAUDIBLE] sites.
GILLIAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a brief yet,
I hope, comprehensive statement.
There's been no more important and vexing decision
for this council to make since I've
been on council than the present decision.
I believe that each and every councilman
recognizes the urgent need to develop
suitable housing for people without the means
to compete in the present inflationary housing market,
but we all also appreciate the possibility
that our decision tonight may have
an impact upon the areas in which this housing is
to be situated.
One of the reasons the decision has
been difficult has been that existing law does not
tell councilmen what criteria are
to be considered in making this decision
where to locate the housing.
Section 14a of the city charter simply
states that the housing authority must, quote,
"obtain the approval of the council on each construction
site," close quote.
When we consider zoning matters, there
are strict statutory and case law guides
as to what matters are to be considered,
but not so in this case.
Thus, it is incumbent upon council
to develop its own criteria, and faithfully
apply reasonable standards to each of the sites.
A second factor in making this decision difficult
is the tenuousness of control which the council can legally
exercise over the ultimate site plans.
There are sites which would be acceptable to me
if the density were reduced far below what's been proposed
by the housing authority.
Some of the sites would be acceptable
only if we or the planning commission
could review the final site plans.
I agree fully with the recommendation
of the League of Women Voters that the number
of units on some of the sites be reduced substantially
in order to ensure a limited neighborhood impact.
I also subscribe to the League's suggestion
that council ensure open space and recreational facilities
and that the various planning bodies coordinate their efforts
with respect to the various sites.
Now we must make certain that these reviews take place.
How do I see the duty of council?
First, I believe that, from a legal point of view,
we must take the site density and site plans proposed
and act upon them.
Second, I do not believe that's our duty
to review whether the housing authority has complied
with federal and state requirements.
I'm satisfied on the basis of the representations made
and information given to me by competent attorneys,
like Mr. Wood and Mr. Goldman, that all
applicable federal and state law requirements have
been fully complied with.
Third, I do believe that we must determine whether the proposed
sites comply with local ordinances.
Based upon what I've been told by the city attorney, the city
engineer, the Department of Community Development,
and the housing authority's independent attorney, Mr.
Wood, the chairman of the Housing Authority,
and my own very limited research,
I'm satisfied that all applicable local ordinances
and regulations will have been fully complied with.
Fourth, I feel governed by statements
which I have previously made with respect to housing
projects of any description, whether they
be public or private.
During my campaign on April 19, 1972,
I published a statement in The Daily Progress as follows.
"I am unalterably opposed to the location of large housing
projects, regardless of whether they're publicly
or privately owned, in settled residential areas
of our communities.
We should examine these requests in light of their impact
on the neighborhood.
Any housing which is to be constructed,
public or private, should be in small, livable units,
must not upset existing neighborhoods
in any area of town, and I would favor townhouse type
construction."
I would assume that some people cast their votes for me
at least in part in reliance upon that public statement,
and I'm very strongly guided by the principles
I expressed at that time.
Fifth, I believe that we should apply a rule of reason
to these sites, and the criteria which
most reasonable people would consider reasonable
should be applied.
The Department of Community Development has at our request
suggested certain criteria and has evaluated
a large number of possible housing sites
against these criteria.
The criteria employed are buildability,
which means contours, soil conditions, floodplain,
topography, et cetera--
present zoning, relocation requirements, site size,
availability of mass transit, access to community facilities
and services, availability of utilities,
environmental impact, acquisition cost,
demographic characteristics, specifically
compliance with type with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, past history, and access.
Each of the large number of potential sites
has been rated according to these criteria,
and while I do not consider these writings to be
conclusive, they are helpful guidelines.
Excuse me.
In addition to these criteria, I have also
endeavored to determine the effect on existing school
populations.
Sixth, I believe that, as a member of the only elected body
to consider this matter, it is incumbent upon all of us
as council members to give great weight
to the views of the public.
It is the public who will live in the units,
and it is the public who will ultimately
pay the price for these units.
I have met with groups of people in most of the neighborhoods,
had perhaps 50 telephone conversations
with interested citizens, and have
received about two dozen pieces of written correspondence.
I have attended the public hearings
and heard the arguments, as well as the threats of litigation,
which are, in my opinion, ill conceived, unfounded,
and in poor taste.
I have considered all of this material extremely carefully.
I must confess to experiencing the grievous sort
of disappointment that, excepting members
of the Housing Authority and the League of Women Voters,
the proponents of this housing have been distressingly silent.
For years, a large number of people
have cried, begged, and pleading for this housing
to be located on scattered sites, but when it's up to us
to hold public hearings, take a lot of abuse,
where are the advocates?
It's upsetting to be deserted at a time like this.
Based upon all the foregoing, I've decided as follows.
With respect to Mickey Drive, I would support this site.
With respect to Garrett Sixth Street,
I support this site if the number of units
is reduced to 35, and if the site improvements which
have been suggested by the league are implemented.
With respect to Cleveland Avenue,
I recognize that there may be potential flooding
problems associated with this site,
but I'm informed that these problems can be managed.
While some neighborhood opposition has appeared,
the moderate density proposed for this site will not,
in my opinion, have a substantial adverse effect
on the surrounding areas, and I would
support this site as proposed.
With respect to the Riverside Jessup site,
despite poor access to community facilities by existing
public transportation, this site is
acceptable to the neighborhood, and I support it
to the extent of 26 units.
With regard to Chesapeake Street, I and Mr. Van Yahres
have previously announced that I will not
support this site, which would adversely impact an unusual
and I believe truly unique existing community.
With regard to Madison Avenue, this site
presents the most difficulties for me.
The site received no more than moderate grades
from the Department of Community Development
according to the criteria mentioned above.
It's primarily a single family owner occupied neighborhood,
though there are some exceptions to this.
We are informed by the city engineer
that the problems which have plagued
this neighborhood in times of heavy rain can be managed.
I would hope that the off site improvements, which
the city would have to provide for Madison Avenue,
will benefit the adjoining neighborhood
and ameliorate their problems.
I cannot support the maximum suggested 42 units and could
not support more than 16 or 18 units.
I could vote for those units only
if given adequate assurances that the proposed duplexes will
be located at the western most end of the proposed site,
and that the site plan is finally developed
must, in my opinion, retain as many of the existing trees
and as much of the existing ground cover as is feasible.
It's my final opinion that the council approval, which
is to be given tonight, should be considered approval
for the purpose of enabling the authority to proceed
to obtain HUD review.
But before final construction proceeds,
I would hope that the detailed site plans and elevations will
be presented to the planning commission
and that the suggestions of the Department of Community
development and of the planning commission will be adhered to.
In the event any portion of this project is not approved by HUD,
I would certainly hope that the authority would endeavor
to place the cut units on Cherry First Street, which is--
or Cherry Avenue and First Street, which has already
been approved by referendum.
FIFE: Thank you, Mr. Gilliam.
I should have stated prior to recognizing Mr. Gilliam
that the council has received quite a number of letters,
which I believe have been read by all the members--
I know I've read them two or three times--
and have been approached by different individuals
personally, over the telephone, and each councilor personally
has visited the sites.
I myself have visited them at least three times each.
Yesterday during the flash flooding condition
I wanted to see two of the sites that I thought
were subject to a lot of water.
That was Madison Avenue and Cleveland Avenue.
Tonight the public will not be heard from,
since we have had a hearing, and we have
had a vast amount of input.
Tonight is a night for council to discuss, vote.
Mr. Van Yahres.
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor, first of all,
I'd like to basically agree with Mr. Gilliam and his statement.
I might have a slight disagreement with numbers,
and I would like to introduce my numbers,
but before I do, one thing I agree with wholeheartedly--
that the criterias outlined by Mr. Gilliam
have been used by all of this, I think.
I know I have.
I use them very carefully and studied the community
development report, which we asked
for very early in this selection process.
And I would like to go one step further than Mr. Gilliam.
The conversations I've had almost unanimously
with the people since this subject has come up
have asked us to consider or strongly
demand, I guess you would say, that we hold on to the rights
to control any changes in the neighborhood that may happen
after this selection process has been completed,
either by number of units, or their placement.
I would therefore like to offer a resolution
to back up what Mr. Gilliam has outlined, a resolution asking
that the--
or requesting that the housing authority present
any plans that they may have after HUD approval
as to detailed site plans and exterior elevations
to the planning commission for review and comments.
And hopefully they would accept those comments.
I would also like to reserve the right for council
to review any changes in number of allocated units
to any given site.
I would like to put this in the form of a resolution, Mr.
Mayor, [? which has ?] two points.
FIFE: Your resolution, Mr. Van Yahres,
has to do with a request directed to the redevelopment
and housing authorities that they submit the site plans
to the planning commission--
VAN YAHRES: Right.
FIFE: --for their approval.
VAN YAHRES: Site plans and exterior elevations.
I think this is important, also.
FIFE: And secondly, that any changes
from the maximum number that the council votes on be submitted
to council, right?
Is that correct?
Move by Mr. Van Yahres.
Is there a second?
GILLIAM: Second.
FIFE: Seconded by Mr. Gilliam.
[? Discuss. ?] This has not to do with the maximum number,
but it has to do with the actual number of units
planned to be put if there is a change from the maximum number?
VAN YAHRES: Actual numbers that I hope that this council will
designate this evening.
I also would like to continue then with--
Mr. Gilliam has mentioned numbers.
I would like to mention the numbers.
I don't know whether Mr. Gilliam has offered his as a motion.
I would like to offer a motion after this.
FIFE: Mr. Gilliam has not--
I did not hear him offer as a motion,
nor did I hear him designate numbers
with regard to all the sites.
I did hear some numbers.
Any discussion about other--
Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask a question.
First of all, can you just run over the two points
again so I'm sure I understand what your resolution is?
VAN YAHRES: It is requesting the housing authority
after HUD approval of the sites to present these
to the planning commission, in other words, for review.
RINEHART: I wonder if that is possible,
because once it has been approved by HUD, if there's
any change, it has to go back to HUD for approval.
In other words, if they approve a certain number of sites,
it would have to go back to HUD then if they
change the number of sites.
VAN YAHRES: I'm not talking about the sites now.
I'm talking about the--
RINEHART: Numbers of units on sites.
VAN YAHRES: No, the plans themselves for the units.
The site numbers-- I think council will hold on to that.
I'd like to see council have that control as a second part.
FIFE: Well, we could say before or after.
RINEHART: Yeah, the second part, yeah.
FIFE: [INAUDIBLE]
VAN YAHRES: Wherever there's a change made, in other words,
in numbers.
That's what you're talking about.
FIFE: No.
No, we talked about the first part of your resolution, which
has to do with the submission of the plan
to the planning commission.
VAN YAHRES: Right.
FIFE: Not the numbers.
The plan.
GILLIAM: As I understand Mr. Van Yahres first part of his
motion-- and that is that the housing authority, once its--
excuse me-- developed its final plan
showing the location of these dwelling units upon the sites
which we have previously approved,
and hopefully which HUD will have approved by that time,
these would go to the planning commission
and to the Department of Community development.
And at hearings to be held on those,
hopefully the reactions of the people
in the neighborhood to the specific site
plans as finally approved could be taken into consideration.
FIFE: Provided that you're not requiring
a hearing type that requires a certain amount of notice.
The reason I say that is because of the requirement here that we
have of expediting things so that we
don't lose the possibility of getting these units.
GILLIAM: My understanding has been that the critical thing--
the sequence was to have us approve the sites, which
we propose to do this evening.
And then the housing authority would go to HUD
to have the sites approved.
And then after that's done, the housing authority,
as I understand it, will get certain sums of money
in which to develop final plans to make final checks
on this engineering data--
FIFE: Correct.
GILLIAM: So on.
And at that time, there'll be a set of final plans prepared.
Well, at that process is where I think that the planning
commission should be heard from, because this
will have a tremendous amount to do with the way
these sites appear.
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart.
RINEHART: It's my understanding, however,
from working for two years with the housing authority
that the federal government does not
allow this kind of procedure.
FIFE: Well, I think that nevertheless I
think that we can certainly put this in a resolution,
requesting the authority so that we can--
RINEHART: Very well.
You can, but I think you'd better hear from the authority
to see what kind-- what effect a resolution would have on them.
I mean, I think they are--
and will state.
I know they are an autonomous body,
and once we have given approval, no resolution,
no moral suasion, or anything else
really has any legal weight.
It's just up to them to do the best they can
and that this is not to say that they won't certainly
do a good job, but we have really no way
of putting any control on it.
I think the federal government has very good procedures
so that local governments cannot get [? in the act. ?]
FIFE: Well, [? I don't ?] see this as putting a control on.
I see this as a request, which is something
that I don't see how HUD can prevent us
from making a request.
RINEHART: Well, we can, but it's--
I'm pretty certain that, when a site plan is presented to HUD,
that the site plan has to include the number of units,
and that will be tied to approval of each site.
FIFE: Mr. Barber.
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, a couple of things.
One of them is say I got off my sick to come to this meeting,
so I hope I won't be very long.
I'm only going to stay for the items
that I can and should vote on, because others
I don't have to be present for.
I'm going to leave as soon as this one and another one
are taken care of, one.
Two, I see some problem with the proposed
that Mr. Gilliam have made.
The [? planning ?] [? formation-- ?] what would be
their purpose of viewing it?
Will they change?
Will they send the council for final approval?
Will they hold a public hearing?
VAN YAHRES: No, this would not come back to council.
The site plan review would be planning commission.
BARBOUR: Hold a public hearing?
We'd hold a public hearing?
VAN YAHRES: It would be a hearing not
in the legal sense of the word.
In other words, it would get public input.
Like we very often do, we ask for the public
to comment on a particular subject, a proposal.
BARBOUR: I can see what will happen.
I think the public hearing that we
held last week proved what will happen.
Those that oppose will come and oppose it,
and then where will you be?
VAN YAHRES: It won't be a question of the site being
opposed or proposed.
The site will already have certain numbers designated.
BARBOUR: I feel that, if the planning commission holds
a public hearing, I'd like for the council
to have another say, rather than let the public--
I think this [? creates a ?] problem in time delay.
I see some problem with that.
I'm not sure about the legality, but I see some problem
with what you're saying.
I don't see what good use public hearing, unless you're
going to heave to some of their suggestions, a recommendation.
VAN YAHRES: Well, I think that's exactly
the idea, because I think the neighborhood
that these proposed units will be in
should have some input as to, for instance, saving some trees
as buffers, as an example.
And neighborhoods have worked this out very
well with planning departments, and I'm
sure they'll do it with council authority beforehand.
Hopefully there won't be any problem,
but I think the neighborhood should
have some say as to preserving buffers and things like this.
BARBOUR: Well, I see nothing wrong with that,
but I assume that the authority an architect
will have the same thing in mind.
That's my feeling, right?
While I'm agreeing-- I see what you're saying,
but I'm disagreeing in some of the--
I can see the public coming in, and holding a public hearing,
and it'll be a repeat of when it-- last week.
I mean, I think they'll forget about the units that
have been designated.
They will be concerned about [? keeping ?] [? their-- ?] how
many units have been designated [INAUDIBLE] public hearing
[? period. ?] That's what I feel.
I'm afraid they'll make it off to the wrong thing.
VAN YAHRES: I'm sure it could if it
were allowed to go in that direction,
but I don't see why it should have to.
It should be, I think, a positive approach to the site.
FIFE: I see this as not a legal requirement,
but a suggestion which might lead
to some possible modifications, which could be perfectly
acceptable to the housing authority,
and at the same time good for the neighborhoods that
are affected might thereby be accommodated.
That's the way I see it.
I see that, if this turns out to be something that a planning
commission cannot do in the process, then it won't be done.
This is a request, as I understand it.
Mr. Van Yahres?
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor, I'd also like to add,
in vacuum, what Mr. Barber is saying
is possibly delaying action.
I certainly would not have this intent
as being any possibility of delaying the procedure itself.
All I'm looking at this as a positive method
of getting public input into a particular site.
The positive aspect is not to start
trying to defeat the project or anything like that,
but it's to try and make it as nearly
palatable to the community affected
as possible without delaying.
I agree with you that it should not be a delaying tactic.
BARBOUR: But what will happen?
FIFE: Mr. Barber?
BARBOUR: What will happen if the planning commission holds
its hearing and the public or common want certain things
that the planning commission see that are unable to cope with?
They won't have--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
FIFE: [INAUDIBLE] I see it, the planning commission
would hear these things, and come to some conclusions,
and pass those conclusions on to the redevelopment and housing
authority with the hope that they could be carried out
[INAUDIBLE].
If they can't, they can't.
Mr. Gilliam?
GILLIAM: It seems to me that in certain--
in the case of certain sites, Mr. Mayor,
there is work there will be called
for on the part of the city, such as the border streets,
in the case of Madison Avenue, storm sewer situation all
through that entire neighborhood.
And it seems to me that, in addition to whatever assistance
the housing authority could derive
from this type of review, that the entire community
and the city council could benefit
by getting some information as to what we have to do,
what the city has to do, or what the city can do.
I can foresee, just as an example,
that a large number of members of the public would say, well,
there isn't enough room on this particular site
for recreation facilities.
And the housing authority is saying, well,
we can't afford to put any more recreation facilities that are
shown on our initial site plan.
Well, at that time, an approach could
be made to council about a possible supplemental
appropriation to cover this.
So I think that, even though there wouldn't be anything
legally binding on anybody, that it will give people who
are experienced in this type of review,
the opportunity to hopefully come up
with some suggestions that will be accepted by the housing
authority and by us in the spirit in which they're
offered.
FIFE: Any other comments with regard to this resolution?
We've done a lot of discussing of the first part of it,
and as I understood the second part
was that, if there were changes in the numbers
from the maximums?
VAN YAHRES: No, from allocated numbers that
[? we'll ?] [? pass ?] on tonight.
FIFE: Well, I-- it was my feeling that, at least
on my part, that it would be a wise thing for council
to [INAUDIBLE] maximums.
VAN YAHRES: Maximum per unit.
I thought you meant the maximums that
were presented to us already.
FIFE: No.
VAN YAHRES: No, no.
FIFE: I'm talking about maximums that the council would
[? agree on. ?]
VAN YAHRES: I agree.
I agree.
FIFE: So I don't know why we need
to have the second part of the resolution in that case.
VAN YAHRES: Well, the only thing, Mr. Mayor,
if we allocated-- if there were changes made,
say, reducing on one and increasing on another.
FIFE: Well, I'm thinking about maximums on each site.
VAN YAHRES: And then it would have to come back to us anyhow.
What would happen if HUD, for instance, dropped one site?
FIFE: I think the maximums, as far as I would be concerned,
would stand.
VAN YAHRES: Well, then you would have--
FIFE: For each site.
VAN YAHRES: The way I would see it, then,
and the allocations I have-- the numbers I've used,
I've used exactly 100.
There is no flexibility in these numbers as far as losing one.
There would have to be a change in others
or go to another site.
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, you all are talking about something
that just is not possible.
The only thing that we can legally do
is to approve or disapprove a certain site,
and I think we're going to find this out.
I know this, having gone to plan--
to the redevelopment housing authority
meetings for two years now.
And we can talk all we want to, and there
are good fine people on the housing authority,
but when it comes down to it, all we can vote on is,
do we want a certain site or not?
And the rest is up to the federal government
and the housing authority.
I'll be willing to vote for a resolution just for--
at least, I believe I will--
just to let the housing authority know our feeling,
but it is not legally binding.
In fact, it can't even be binding in any way
if they're caught in restrictions
by the federal government and various other things.
If HUD turns them down, just as you say, then what do they do?
Then they have to find other sites,
or else increase their density.
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres, let me ask you to divide your resolution,
taking the first part first and withholding--
if Mr. Gilliam would agree, withholding the second part
or withdrawing the second part to be voted on separately
or considered separately.
The first part would be the submission
to the planning commission and the community development
department.
VAN YAHRES: Right.
FIFE: You agree, Mr. Gilliam?
GILLIAM: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
FIFE: Right.
RINEHART: This is to say that we would desire that the housing
authority do this.
FIFE: We are requesting the housing authority--
RINEHART: We're requesting.
VAN YAHRES: This is correct.
BARBOUR: [INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: Requesting the housing authority
to submit to the planning commission
the general plans for the sites--
BARBOUR: After [INAUDIBLE] or before?
FIFE: And with site plans, and elevations, and so forth.
BARBOUR: After [? heard ?] approval?
FIFE: Either before or after, whichever is the more suitable.
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, would you like to-- do you think it would
be wise to ask those that will be affected--
Mr. Arrington or Mr. [INAUDIBLE] [? Clyde ?] [INAUDIBLE],,
how this affects them in times--
in terms of time and so forth.
FIFE: Only if they wish to make comments.
GILLIAM: Well, I think with what we are--
the decision we're going to make is going to affect them,
and I think they might--
I'd be interested in hearing what
they've got to say about it.
FIFE: Mr. [? Gelman, ?] do you want to speak to this, or?
SPEAKER 1: Mayor, quite frankly, I've
been trying to listen to members of council
to determine what exactly council was about to do,
and we still don't know that.
So I can't say that unequivocally we
accept the resolution.
We don't know what it's going to be.
I've, at the same time, tried to ask Mr. Arrington what
are some of the problems and then trying to listen to him,
and you all haven't succeeded.
So I think the best thing to do is
ask him to step up here briefly and try
to make several comments about the timing,
as to whether this would be more appropriate before
or after we submit to HUD and some of the problems.
And simply close by saying that, as far
as the spirit of council's request,
we certainly can understand that.
We agree with it, and I think we can certainly
work with the Department of Community
development and the planning commission.
And we would like to have the input.
And as I testified at the hearing,
we have already received such input on an informal basis
from meetings with the staff of the city.
FIFE: Right.
Thank you.
Mr. Arrington, did you want to add anything to that, or?
SPEAKER 2: Mr. Mayor, in what I understand
is about to come forth, also, I don't think I've heard anything
to the contrary of what we would have normally done anyway
with the exception possibly of the planning commission
holding a public hearing on it.
As you are well aware that we have indicated the time
schedule that we're working under, and as you will recall,
we were hoping that this decision was
going to be made back in April.
And here it is the middle of May.
I see it presenting a very difficult problem
to do what is suggested here in terms
of presenting the planning commission,
let them hold a public hearing on.
Again, moving in the directions that
have turned to meet the schedule at HUD has indicated to us
we would present the site plans to the community development
department for their review, and input, and so forth.
And other than the public hearing--
FIFE: Would you say this is more feasible before you submit
plans to HUD or afterward?
SPEAKER 2: Well, Mr. Mayor, this is done simultaneously with
the preparation of a development program,
and that's what our-- we are aiming for--
the site selection approval--
we are hopeful to get the HUD people here very shortly,
that they could give us somewhat of a verbal assurance of it.
They have inspected and seen some of the sites, but not--
have not examined them in detail.
So therefore, they are not in a position
to give us a green light here already,
but I do see that it is going to present
some problems with reference to some of the steps
that you've suggested at this time.
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres?
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor, I wouldn't
want to delay the procedure, and by public hearing,
maybe this is the wrong term to use
as it might be confusing in that we
have to go through the legal process of notice and so forth.
This was not the intent.
The idea of a public hearing is, let's say,
community input is what I'm looking for.
It's not to advertise--
legally advertise for a public hearing
and so forth, but to seek advice,
seek information from the public that
is affected by the project.
That's the whole intent, and I'm sure they'll
have ideas in there that--
which we-- which the housing authority,
which community development department would not think.
And that is why I put that in there--
not as the intent of a legal public hearing.
FIFE: Correct.
I think that should be clear by now.
Any further discussion before we vote on that resolution.
Let's vote.
RINEHART: [? You ?] [? cannot ?] [? vote ?] [INAUDIBLE]..
FIFE: That resolution passes.
Now, as to the second part of the second resolution,
I should say, or proposal, I would wonder Mr. Van Yahres,
if you would consider withholding that until council
goes down the sites and makes some decision with regard to
whether or not it wishes to vote for a site
and whether or not it wishes to impose some maximum number
of units on the site.
VAN YAHRES: Your point is correct.
If we have a maximum number on a site,
then it would [INAUDIBLE].
FIFE: Then you might want to bring up your resolution.
I don't know.
Now, did you say you wanted to proceed as Mr. Gilliam had--
VAN YAHRES: Yes, right.
I would-- the numbers I have used--
and mine add up to only 100.
Mr. Gilliam has used a figure of 120.
My allocation would be as follows.
The Cleveland Avenue, 12.
Riverside, 16.
Mickey Drive, 29.
Sixth Street, 25.
Chesapeake, eliminated.
And Madison Avenue, 18.
And I also agree with Mr. Gilliam
as to his allocation of where the Madison Avenue
site should be.
They should forget the eastern end of that site.
FIFE: Now, Mr. Gilliam, do you want to put numbers on your--
GILLIAM: Well, I think--
FIFE: [INAUDIBLE] put some numbers,
and you haven't put others, so [INAUDIBLE]..
GILLIAM: Well, in a note--
in my statement, Mr. Mayor, I said
that I couldn't support more than whatever
the number mentioned was.
And in each case, the number that Mr. Van Yahres
has mentioned is less.
And if Mr. Van Yahres has made that--
those numbers in the form of a motion, then I
think that I'd be up for a [? second. ?]
FIFE: Well, I think that I really
should proceed in the same manner that we have.
All I was trying to do at the moment is to get the numbers,
rather than get a motion yet.
I'd rather have each council [INAUDIBLE]..
VAN YAHRES: Let me have two to--
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: Would it be--
excuse me.
Would it be better-- so if you go down that list site by site,
and then you can state your unit [INAUDIBLE] each councilman
can--
I'd personally prefer you went down the list site by site.
Then we can vote having--
what the case might be.
I think there'll be a lot less confusion that way, and a lot--
save a lot of time, also.
If you started Cleveland or any one of them
around there and list, and the same person
have said what they prefer can say it again
so we keep the record in some kind of running order.
At least, I would think so.
FIFE: All right, does the council
wish to proceed in that fashion, or would you--
VAN YAHRES: You mean you're asking
where it's agreement or disagreement from a council
person?
BARBOUR: No, just Cleveland Avenue.
You can state what you have said.
It doesn't matter.
I just want-- each councilman can go down [INAUDIBLE] each
one going through the whole list of sites.
[INAUDIBLE] for each-- the council as a
total to go through the whole thing at one time.
I think there's a lot less confusion.
Do you agree [INAUDIBLE]?
VAN YAHRES: Fine with me.
BARBOUR: [INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: [INAUDIBLE].
The way I have them listed on my piece of paper
here is Mickey Drive first, Grant Street second,
Riverside third, Madison fourth, Chesapeake fifth,
and Cleveland sixth.
Everybody got that?
All right, on Mickey Drive I have
a maximum of 29 suggested by Mr. Van Yahres.
[INAUDIBLE] Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: I am-- is one motion a show of hand?
I mean, I'm not--
FIFE: I mean, how many do you want?
BARBOUR: That's find.
29 is fine.
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: Mr. Van Yahres, Mr. Mayor.
FIFE: Mrs. Rinehart.
RINEHART: I have not gone through these with the numbers
that I'd prefer.
I spent four hours today here in Mr. Fife's office listening
to the tapes of the public hearing of May 3,
and listened very carefully to all the comments.
Again, I think we can put numbers on them,
but the numbers have actually no legal binding effect
upon the housing authority.
I possibly will vote for numbers,
but I really prefer to vote for sites,
and then have the numbers worked out later.
But I'm not-- I haven't got down all Mr. Gilliam's
numbers or Mr. Van Yahre's numbers, either.
So can we take that first site, please, and get-- be sure
that I have Mr. Gilliam's and Mr. Van Yahre's numbers.
VAN YAHRES: Can we use one more?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Gilliam, as to our point of order,
I think a ruling from the chair is required.
Now, the way I read section 14a of the city charter, which
is what governs these hearings tonight,
it says the housing authority must, quote,
"obtain the approval of the council on each construction
site."
Now, the way I read that, if the general assembly in granting us
this charter, this charter [INAUDIBLE]
in its infinite wisdom had wished us to limit
our consideration only to whether or not the housing
authority can acquire a site, or whether or not they
could exercise the right of eminent domain as to a site,
they would have said that.
But they said on each construction site.
The word construction, to my way of thinking,
applies a much broader concept than simply a site.
It seems to me on each construction site
has in it implicitly the right to decide what
is to be constructed on a site.
From that, I infer that we have the power
to determine how many units as a maximum.
Now, I think that perhaps the first thing the council ought
to do, Mr. Mayor, is to decide whether or not
the council agrees that it has the power
to set maximum numbers with respect to each site.
I feel it does, but if the feeling of council
is to the contrary, then it seems to me
that I'm certainly going to take a completely different slant
on a couple of these sites, because I don't have
any intention of voting for what's
proposed as the maximum number.
FIFE: Mr. Gilliam, you have asked
that a ruling be made as to this council's opinion with regard
to this.
I would say that, at one point, I
stated that the council I felt did not
have the power to do this--
state how many-- or determine how many
units can be placed on a site.
I must say that I have now changed my opinion,
and I believe that the council does have
that power, but Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, I believe we can talk for [INAUDIBLE]
make a decision.
With 45 minutes, we have said nothing.
Can I offer [? another ?] suggestion?
Can we go down the list and approve how many sites
we're going to approve first?
Then we go back to the numbers if we [? will. ?]
Then we approve whether we're going
to accept the six sites, five sites, or three sites first.
Then we go back to the number, if you will.
Rather that should try to give us some kind of order.
We go down approved, council approved, x sites.
Then we go back, and we accept how many numbers of each site.
FIFE: Mr. Barbour, I'd have to say
that I think that Mr. Gilliam's point, however, is
a very important point, because depending on which way this is
decided, I gather as to how members of council
will vote with regard to certain sites whether yes or no.
If this matter is not decided, then there'll
be a difficulty in trying to determine.
BARBOUR: I agree with Mr. Gilliam.
I am concerned about the total number of units on each site.
But I'd like to get some sites approved.
Then we can know how many numbers we need for each site.
That's what I'm--
FIFE: What I'm saying is that I foresee the possibilities
that certain sites would not be approved if council did not
feel that it had the power to do this.
So that I think that it is important to make
this decision.
BARBOUR: I am willing to limit the site--
the units on each site.
I would like to have some--
so [INAUDIBLE] how many sites are we going to approve so
we know how many to put on each.
I'm saying their votes go together.
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres?
VAN YAHRES: May I offer a suggestion?
I think Mr. Barbour is looking for a total number of sites
to work with.
We've got six before us.
BARBOUR: Right.
That's it.
VAN YAHRES: I offer a resolution that this council eliminate
the Chesapeake site.
GILLIAM: Second.
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, I will vote--
I will vote to eliminate this site
because I feel that the people in the Chesapeake area
had worked hard and with the housing authority to bring
in an alternative site, one that was advertised
that they accepted.
And it was advertised, so I feel that they showed
good faith, good cooperation.
There was concern about housing, and since they worked hard
and put in an alternative site, I
will vote to eliminate this site.
FIFE: Well, let me say that move by Mr. Van Yahres, seconded
by Mr. Gilliam is that the Chesapeake site be eliminated.
Is there any further discussion?
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor, I would just
like to reiterate what Mr. Barbour has said.
I would like to commend the Chesapeake site
community for what they did.
We asked them-- we gave them a week, I believe it was,
to go out and--
BARBOUR: Gave all.
VAN YAHRES: --everybody-- but we used the week as a time span.
And in that time, they did exactly what
we had hoped would happen.
They found a site, which maybe they don't all agree with,
but it's an alternative which was more acceptable-- far more
acceptable to the community than the one which was brought in.
And I would like to heartily commend them
for doing this and coming back with a positive approach
to a very, very sticky problem.
And I'd just like to add a very strong second Mr. Barbour's
commendation.
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: I would agree with that, too.
I won't take up any more time with repeating it,
but I certainly commend the Chesapeake Street people, too.
And I don't want to vote for the Chesapeake Street site.
FIFE: I think we might as well make it formal, then.
Let's vote.
RINEHART: This is yes, that we don't want it.
FIFE: This is [? denial. ?]
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
FIFE: Denial of the Chesapeake site.
Chesapeake site is [INAUDIBLE].
[APPLAUSE]
Please.
[LAUGHTER]
VAN YAHRES: [INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: That's the last time we'll hear that.
Now, we're now at the point of whether somebody wants
to make a motion on some other site,
or whether we want to make this determination that we
were talking about first.
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: We now have five sites left,
and we have a proposed 100 units of housing.
Simple arithmetic says that we've got to get five into 100,
so perhaps we may be getting back to the numbers again.
GILLIAM: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Gilliam?
GILLIAM: I would move that the chair be requested to rule--
that the council pursuant to the authority
conferred by section 14a of the city charter
has the power to approve a limited number of units
on each of the proposed sites.
BARBOUR: [INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: A maximum number.
GILLIAM: Did I say minimum?
VAN YAHRES: Limited.
You said limited.
GILLIAM: Maximum.
[INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: Moved by Mr. Gilliam.
VAN YAHRES: Second.
BARBOUR: Point of information would be--
OK.
FIFE: Seconded by Mr. Van Yahres.
Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: Have we voted to include all the other sites?
FIFE: No, sir.
BARBOUR: OK.
[INAUDIBLE]
FIFE: In a discussion before we vote on this--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: --this motion.
GILLIAM: [INAUDIBLE] to limit.
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: I would vote to approve sites,
but as long as I am certain that we don't agree with Mr. Gilliam
that the broad interpretation of 14a, I will approve sites,
but mine would be a vote with merely
a recommendation of numbers, not approval
of the site with a certain number of units on it.
But I would approve the site, and then
recommend that so many units be on it.
So I might have to take a second vote.
FIFE: No, you are now voting on the motion
of Mr. Gilliam, seconded by Mr. Van Yahres
that the chair rules that the council is of the opinion
that it does have the authority to set maximum [INAUDIBLE]..
RINEHART: Well, I am not of that opinion,
so I'll have to vote no on this.
FIFE: I understand.
Any further discussion before we vote?
The chair so rules.
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres?
VAN YAHRES: I'd like to make the motion that we
have conditionally approved the Garrett Street
site, which is, I think, the Sixth Street
is listed for 25 units.
GILLIAM: I'll second.
RINEHART: 25 units.
FIFE: Moved by Mr. Van Yahres.
Seconded by Mr. Gilliam that the-- now,
this is the maximum number of units.
VAN YAHRES: Conditionally approve the maximum number
of 25 for the Garrett Street.
FIFE: Of 25 for the Garrett Street site.
Discussion?
Well, according to the numbers that I have worked out,
I have raised that to 35 as a maximum.
I must admit that my total comes out
to 108, which means that obviously eight would have
to be eliminated, but this would allow
for some internal movement, you might say, by the housing
authority among the sites.
So I would find myself having to vote against that number.
Council ready to vote?
I always have trouble with this no button.
Then I'm accepting this as a motion
for the approval of Garrett Street
and for a maximum of 25 units.
GILLIAM: Correct.
Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Gilliam.
GILLIAM: I'd move that 29 be approved for Mickey Drive.
FIFE: Motion that Mickey Drive be approved
and that a maximum number of units should be set at 29.
GILLIAM: That's approved as proposed
by the authority, the maximum of 29.
RINEHART: Mr. Gilliam?
FIFE: Just a second.
What do you mean by that?
GILLIAM: Their request to us was for 29 units on that site.
FIFE: Ms. Rinehart?
RINEHART: Mr. Fife, it's our arithmetic
we have two units we have to account for here.
I don't know what your other figures are going to be,
but why a figure of 29 instead of 30?
This is going to be rowhouses, not duplexes?
VAN YAHRES: It's not duplexes.
RINEHART: So that you would vote for 29.
VAN YAHRES: So you can come up with odd numbers.
GILLIAM: You can come up with odd--
VAN YAHRES: And this is what their request was, for 29.
RINEHART: Their request was for 29.
VAN YAHRES: Yeah.
This is the full amount that they asked for.
FIFE: Any discussion before we vote on Mickey Drive?
BARBOUR: Don't have a second, Mr. Mayor.
Second.
FIFE: Excuse me, I thought [INAUDIBLE]..
BARBOUR: All right, Van Yahres, second.
VAN YAHRES: No, Mr. Barbour, I didn't say it.
FIFE: Do you second?
BARBOUR: [? I ?] [? do. ?]
FIFE: Seconded by Mr. Barbour.
And the vote.
Mickey Drive is approved and with a maximum number
of units of 29.
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres?
VAN YAHRES: I'd like to make the motion that we conditionally
approve the Riverside site for 16 units.
FIFE: Moved by Mr. Van Yahres that the Riverside
site be approved for 16 units.
RINEHART: I'll second that.
Are you sure your numbers are coming out to 100 [INAUDIBLE]??
VAN YAHRES: I hope they add up.
FIFE: I would request a change to 18 on that one.
RINEHART: You've got [INAUDIBLE]..
FIFE: You made the motion.
I'm sorry.
Moved by Mr. Van Yahres and seconded by Mrs. Rinehart.
Let's vote.
That is approved for 16 units.
VAN YAHRES: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Van Yahres.
VAN YAHRES: I'd make the motion that we approve the Madison
site conditionally for 18 units.
FIFE: Moved by Mr. Van Yahres, 18 units.
BARBOUR: Seconded.
FIFE: Seconded by Mr. Barbour.
Any discussion?
All right, [? Mr. Barbour. ?]
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor.
FIFE: Mrs. Rinehart.
RINEHART: I should have had my discussion, I think,
before this, because I went over the Madison Avenue site today
with the people who-- the Woodlawn Association people--
and told them I would think about this a great deal.
And I have thought about it.
I realize that they are prepared to bring litigation
against this, and I think that that is a very good thing.
It will clear the air.
I think that, to get 100 units, we
have got to have at least five sites.
And so I vote--
I voted for the Madison Avenue site
with 18 units for that reason.
FIFE: Now, there was one thing that I
think came out in a discussion before, and that was--
had something to do with a discussion about the placement
of the units on the Western end of the proposed site.
I guess we would say really there were three sites, as I
remember them.
That was all classed as one site,
but it was divided by streets in such a way
that there were three sections.
And I heard Mr. Gilliam say, and I
think Mr. Van Yahres repeated that the council requested
that the westernmost portion be used to build upon,
not just that third, but that we avoid the easternmost portion
[INAUDIBLE].
VAN YAHRES: Eastern parcel was the bad one.
FIFE: Now, does the council want to do something with regard
to that, or shall we proceed with a vote
and come back to that?
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me
you're making all these recommendations.
You might as well make your recommendation now.
Again, I'll repeat I don't think you have any legal right
to do it, but as long as you're making recommendations,
you might as well recommend that.
FIFE: [INAUDIBLE] Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: What's the reason?
FIFE: Because of the water conditions existing
on the easternmost section.
BARBOUR: I believe that HUD, who's
going to spend their money, will only spend their money wisely.
And if council vote to put it in the middle of a river,
I believer HUD will either eliminate the site or make--
or drain it, make it an island to do it.
And I don't--
I'm not sure whether we're going to pick
the exact site for the place.
FIFE: Now, as I understood, the suggestion
was that we request the western part.
I sort of reversed that in my suggestion--
was that we request the elimination
of the eastern third, or the eastern section.
BARBOUR: Because of the flood?
FIFE: Because of the water conditions, or whatever else.
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mrs. Rinehart?
RINEHART: I doubt that this is the proper time,
but I think, after we discuss this,
we ought to recommend to the city manager
that something be done about the drainage problem in that area,
whether or not the site is approved by HUD or not.
I think that is an extremely serious drainage problem
and should be attended to.
Residents of Amar Street and along there.
FIFE: I think you're correct, Ms. Rinehart.
We have already discussed that with Mr. Hennings, the problems
that exist over there.
Mr. Barbour?
BARBOUR: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Ms. Rinehart wholehearted,
but I believe that there are [INAUDIBLE] places that's
waiting for one to be fixed while the other [INAUDIBLE]
started, but 10 of 20 throughout the city you can start on,
but I agree it's really bad.
Really bad.
RINEHART: Yeah, when you have--
Mr. Mayor [INAUDIBLE] large holes in someone's backyard,
I think it's really time [INAUDIBLE] the storm
sewers are just digging out someone's backyard
so completely that it really is time
to do something in that spot.
FIFE: I feel compelled, then, to say at this point
that, as I see it, this is not legally
the city's responsibility.
The city is not at fault. The developer really
is the one that is at fault. Now,
if the city can, in some way, help
to ameliorate the situation, then certainly I
think we ought to try.
But I do not consider it our legal responsibility.
RINEHART: Mr. Mayor, may I make two comments here.
First of all, I think it is the city's legal responsibility
in that they allow developers to come in and build,
and this is a problem that has been
brought about by overdevelopment and under--
over development of the top of the land,
and under development of the sewer system--
storm sewer system.
Also, when this site is put to HUD, whether or not
there is litigation, which I'm sure there will be--
that HUD will certainly make the studies that
have been requested and that many residents have said
should have been done primarily, but HUD will do the feasibility
studies.
And at that point, they can certainly
[INAUDIBLE] exactly what needs to be done to the whole area.
FIFE: Mr. Hendrix?
HENDRIX: I would only like to interject
this at this point, that I think what the mayor has indicated
is true as far as the city's responsibility to the storm
sewers is concerned.
It's in very bad condition.
If we assume responsibility for that,
then we assume the responsibility for hundreds
of them all over the city.
And unless council is prepared to make rather
sizable appropriations of funds to repair them,
I think you make a big mistake by going out and repairing one.
FIFE: My feeling, Mr. Hendrix, that something
can be done in this case, which would not
have to be done in other cases, but I
agree with you in general.
I have, I don't believe, heard a motion with regard to this,
so we either handle this particular problem
which has to do with the portion of this site to be built upon,
or we move on to the next site.
GILLIAM: Mr. Mayor?
FIFE: Mr. Gilliam?
GILLIAM: I'd like to make two resolutions pertaining
to this site--
one, that the housing authority be requested
to use the westernmost portion of the proposed site,
and that they exercise the greatest degree of care
in trying to save trees, ground cover,
and other so-called buffer materials.
Second resolution-- I'd like to request the city
manager to explore the cost of making necessary storm sewer
improvements in the area mentioned by Mrs. Rinehart.
RINEHART: I would second that.
FIFE: But I have [? divided ?] [INAUDIBLE]..
GILLIAM: Yeah, it was two.
FIFE: Take your motion first--
GILLIAM: Two.
Two resolutions.
FIFE: --made by Mr. Gilliam was building
on the westernmost portion.
Did you second?
RINEHART: Yes, sir.
FIFE: You seconded that.
Now, for a definition here, Mr. Gilliam,
I don't believe that you mean--
if you say that they are three portions there,
you don't mean just the western one third.
GILLIAM: I don't think they can put 16--
18 on that area.
FIFE: Right.
GILLIAM: But I think the spirit of the resolution
is that it not be the easternmost portion, that it
be as far to the west as can conveniently
and in accord with good site planning--
as you can put it.
SPEAKER 1: Mr. Fife?
FIFE: I think that's understood.
Yes, sir, Mr. Coen.
SPEAKER 3: May we respectfully request, council,
to pin down exactly what they mean by westerlymost portion?
We don't understand what you mean
by the spirit of westerlymost portion?
Do you mean the--
I think we have [? taxed ?] map parcels.
I think we have a location map before you somewhere,
a site plan map.
We could have some tax map parcels.
I think we could probably go along with the resolution.
I mean, we--
GILLIAM: Well, maybe it'd be easier
to say to illuminate the easternmost partial--
parcel.
FIFE: This would be that portion from Rosehill Drive extending
to that first street, which is Meridian Street, or--
RINEHART: Meadow Street.
FIFE: Meadow Street.
There's a street that cuts through there
that I think would serve--
GILLIAM: Meadow.
Meadow Street.
FIFE: I think it's an unfinished street,
but it would eliminate that portion.
SPEAKER 1: So that everything east of that street
would be eliminated if this resolution were adopted.
FIFE: What we're really suggesting is that you're not
even part of that piece of property, but that's--
[LAUGHTER]
Is that-- is the council ready to vote now?
Now, this is on the first resolution,
which eliminates the third eastern portion of Rosehill
to Meadow Street.
Now, Mr. Gilliam, you had a second resolution,
which had to do with requesting the city manager--
GILLIAM: The city manager to explore and report
to us on the cost of making appropriate storm sewer--
I guess improvements is the proper word.