Losing Springfield

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen, I think they are on this thread as copies of the original documents posted by Gloria.  Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?

[strider]

FYI, the majority of demo contracts go to companies owned by the Lloyd's.  Michael Lloyd's Land Clearing and P & G Land Clearing (Grady Lloyd).  While separate companies, both owners (related) were present at least at the 129 East 2nd St demolition. I think it worked out to be something like 44 of 50 odd demolitions.  The two listed here were called "emergency" by Ms Scott meaning no competitive bidding what so ever even possible.  P& G got both contracts. Coincidence?

It is also my understanding that if Jacksonville is found to have blatantly ignored the federal mandates in regards to the funding, ALL federal funding can be withheld, not just the funding immediately at issue.  In other words, not just the millions of NSP, but the millions more from other programs.  Yeah, let's close libraries but allow MS Scott to continue to put all federal funding at risk.  Makes perfect sense to me.

[Cheshire Cat]

FYI, the majority of demo contracts go to companies owned by the Lloyd's.  Michael Lloyd's Land Clearing and P & G Land Clearing (Grady Lloyd).  While separate companies, both owners (related) were present at least at the 129 East 2nd St demolition. I think it worked out to be something like 44 of 50 odd demolitions.  The two listed here were called "emergency" by Ms Scott meaning no competitive bidding what so ever even possible.  P& G got both contracts. Coincidence?

It is also my understanding that if Jacksonville is found to have blatantly ignored the federal mandates in regards to the funding, ALL federal funding can be withheld, not just the funding immediately at issue.  In other words, not just the millions of NSP, but the millions more from other programs.  Yeah, let's close libraries but allow MS Scott to continue to put all federal funding at risk.  Makes perfect sense to me.

interestingly P & G was incorporated in 2010.  Intellius has some interesting background information.

What could possibly go wrong with improper use of federal funds in a circumstance where only one person has ultimate say so and cannot be countermanded when all of the lucrative contracts are going to a couple of cousins under a no bid process?

Why nothing of course Stephen, nothing...just ask Kim Scott.

[m74reeves]

Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's been denial of it...it has just taken some time to get the records that directly show where the funding came from for demo of these 2 properties.

[sheclown]

from:

Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
1

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM
SECTION 106 TOOLKIT:
HOW TO COMPLY WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REQUIREMENTS
The materials included in this t
oolkit are designed to help Responsible Entities comply with the
historic preservation requirements of 36 CFR Part
800, "Protection of Historic Properties," that
are linked to the use of the funds provided
for in § 2301 of the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289), a.k.a
Neighborhood Stabil
ization Program.

D. Demolition
: RECIPIENTS shall not proceed with
the demolition of contributing buildings
within an historic district or
properties listed on or eligible fo
r listing on the National Register until
the procedures set forth in
Stipulation D. are completed.

Source: Environmental Planning Division, Offi
ce of Environment and Energy, CPD, October 2008
12
1. RECIPIENTS shall forward documentation
to the SHPO for each historic property
proposed for demolition, to include
the reason for demolition, a recen
t structural analysis,
a summary of alternatives consid
ered, future plans for the site, the proposed mitigation
plan, and the views of the public.
2. If the SHPO determines t hat the proposed
demolition is the most feasible alternative,
the SHPO shall develop a Standard
Mitigation measures Agreement in accordance with
Stipulation VI.
3. If the SHPO determines that the St
andard Mitigation Meas
ures do not apply,
RECIPIENTS shall notify the Council
and initiate the consultatio
n process set forth in 36
CFR Section 800.5(e)

It is our belief through researching for almost a year, that NONE of these procedures were followed.

[thelakelander]

Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.

[sheclown]

Another question is does anyone have Kim Scott on record denying the use of these funds for demo?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there's been denial of it...it has just taken some time to get the records that directly show where the funding came from for demo of these 2 properties.

There has been a denial of it for years.  Although, I don't think that denial was ever in writing.

[Cheshire Cat]

Was it made during an open council meeting or a meeting where minutes were taken?  There must be something somewhere.

[Cheshire Cat]

Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.

We came very close to having this happen not so long ago Ennis.  I am dead serious about that and it was only the fact that all other Federal funds would be held as well that kept this from going forward back then because it would have impacted some of the funds needed for valid projects underway.

[sheclown]

I wouldn't give my grandson fists full of money and then set him loose in the mall expecting him to make wise choices without supervision.

Seems like that is happening here. 

If the city council, the mayor's office, the historic preservation commission can't figure out a way to have this money in the city's coffers without checking on how it is being spent (out of fear or intimidation), it is best to turn it away.

Zero checks and balances.  Zero accountability.

Zero responsibility.

[Cheshire Cat]

I wouldn't give my grandson fists full of money and then set him loose in the mall expecting him to make wise choices without supervision.

Seems like that is happening here. 

If the city council, the mayor's office, the historic preservation commission can't figure out a way to have this money in the city's coffers without checking on how it is being spent (out of fear or intimidation), it is best to turn it away.

Zero checks and balances.  Zero accountability.

Zero responsibility.

Amazing and totally not what should be happening in this city with tax dollars. 

[m74reeves]

cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds from a 2008 audit

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million

EDITED: they were punished by taking smaller HOME allocations in subsequent years...sadly this punishes some of the good not for profits out there by not having this funding available. again, proper oversight would mean some positive outcomes for the various federal funding the City receives.

[strider]

cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million

Housing audit leaves Jacksonville on the hook for $2.7 million
City must pay U.S. back for housing program mismanagement.
Posted: June 14, 2010 - 7:04pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site
Audit findings

Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhood Department has to pay back the federal government $2.7 million because of mismanagement of a housing program. An audit conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of the City's Home Investment Partnership Program, among other things, found that:

- The city approved a $900,000 loan for a company to purchase an affordable housing complex, despite the fact that company already owned the complex for more than two years.

- Three loans given for the purpose of buying or renovating affordable housing complexes were used on properties that ended in foreclosure.

- Because of the foreclosures, the three properties did not meet key requirements of the program.

- A $500,000 loan was given for the purchase of an affordable housing complex, but documentation verifying that purchase was lacking.


By Matt Dixon
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhoods Department is paying $2.7 million back to the federal government because a housing program was mismanaged, according to documents reviewed by The Times-Union.

A little known 2008 audit said that the Home Investment Partnerships Program, administered by Housing and Neighborhoods, provided money for the purchase and renovation of two affordable housing complexes - Ashley Tower Apartments and Magnolia Point Apartments. Those complexes ended up in foreclosure and did not complete key requirements of the program.

The Home program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and provides money to local governments or nonprofits with the aim of buying or rehabilitating affordable housing. The city is repaying HUD by taking lesser annual Home allocations over a three-year period.

Read the 2008 report here

The audit found that because the two complexes entered foreclosure, they did not provide affordable housing for the length of time required by the program. As a result, the audit said, the city should have stepped in and purchased the properties to allow them to continue providing affordable housing.

City housing officials disagreed.

Wight Greger, director of the city's Housing and Neighborhoods Department, told HUD that the city was not in a financial position to buy and operate the housing complexes.

She said that HUD's own rules do not require a city to purchase a foreclosed property, which sold at a foreclosure sale for $700,000, but say that it "may use purchase options."

Beyond criticizing the city for not stepping in, most of the audit's specific findings of "noncompliance" were related to $2.2 million in loans given to two owners of Ashley Tower.

In 1993, the city gave a $1.4 million Home loan to Sandy Seligman to purchase and renovate Ashley Towers, which ended up in foreclosure. Six years later, the city approved another $900,000 Home loan to Tower Place Apartments, the new owner of Ashley Towers.

The audit notes several issues with this second loan. Among them:

- The loan was approved for the purchase of the complex despite Tower Place apartments having already owned the property for more than two years.

- Work completed by the new owners did not include cost estimates and duplicated work already completed by the first owner.

- The property eventually ended up in foreclosure.

In a letter to HUD officials, Greger said her department "does not dispute many of the criticisms associated with the Ashley Towers project" but the city "entered into the agreement in good faith."

Changes made

As a result of the audit, the Housing and Neighborhoods Department underwent a series of changes to shore up its Home program.

"We have received HUD-sponsored training and technical assistance on most of the issues and re-worked our policies and guidelines as a result," Greger said.

In addition, she said that department-wide changes were made to better monitor Home, and other programs administered by the department.

"Before I came to the city, there were virtually no internal controls set up on the program," she said.

The changes put in place since the audit have earned HUD's approval, and the city received $2.7 million through the Home program in both 2009 and 2010.

"HUD is satisfied with the city's response ... and remains optimistic that when the final [payment] is made that the audit recommendations and responses will have been satisfactorily met and the matter officially closed," wrote Joe Phillips, a HUD spokesman, in a statement.

Greger said that no repercussions were taken against staff members who oversaw the program because they are no longer with the department.



Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million#ixzz2dsQsZG7R

Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.

I would guess that the loss of federal funding for a majority of projects would at lease cause some who are causing the problems we face to go away.  That in itself would be a huge gain for Jacksonville.  What is really scary is that if this kind of easy (by comparison) to find misuse and graft (Because why else hide it? Why else not just do it right like a thousand other cities do?) is going on, imagine what we have yet to begin to find out about.

[Cheshire Cat]

cheshire cat is referring to the mismanagement of HUD HOME funds

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million

Housing audit leaves Jacksonville on the hook for $2.7 million
City must pay U.S. back for housing program mismanagement.
Posted: June 14, 2010 - 7:04pm
JView this story on the All-Access Members site
Audit findings

Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhood Department has to pay back the federal government $2.7 million because of mismanagement of a housing program. An audit conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of the City's Home Investment Partnership Program, among other things, found that:

- The city approved a $900,000 loan for a company to purchase an affordable housing complex, despite the fact that company already owned the complex for more than two years.

- Three loans given for the purpose of buying or renovating affordable housing complexes were used on properties that ended in foreclosure.

- Because of the foreclosures, the three properties did not meet key requirements of the program.

- A $500,000 loan was given for the purchase of an affordable housing complex, but documentation verifying that purchase was lacking.


By Matt Dixon
Jacksonville's Housing and Neighborhoods Department is paying $2.7 million back to the federal government because a housing program was mismanaged, according to documents reviewed by The Times-Union.

A little known 2008 audit said that the Home Investment Partnerships Program, administered by Housing and Neighborhoods, provided money for the purchase and renovation of two affordable housing complexes - Ashley Tower Apartments and Magnolia Point Apartments. Those complexes ended up in foreclosure and did not complete key requirements of the program.

The Home program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and provides money to local governments or nonprofits with the aim of buying or rehabilitating affordable housing. The city is repaying HUD by taking lesser annual Home allocations over a three-year period.

Read the 2008 report here

The audit found that because the two complexes entered foreclosure, they did not provide affordable housing for the length of time required by the program. As a result, the audit said, the city should have stepped in and purchased the properties to allow them to continue providing affordable housing.

City housing officials disagreed.

Wight Greger, director of the city's Housing and Neighborhoods Department, told HUD that the city was not in a financial position to buy and operate the housing complexes.

She said that HUD's own rules do not require a city to purchase a foreclosed property, which sold at a foreclosure sale for $700,000, but say that it "may use purchase options."

Beyond criticizing the city for not stepping in, most of the audit's specific findings of "noncompliance" were related to $2.2 million in loans given to two owners of Ashley Tower.

In 1993, the city gave a $1.4 million Home loan to Sandy Seligman to purchase and renovate Ashley Towers, which ended up in foreclosure. Six years later, the city approved another $900,000 Home loan to Tower Place Apartments, the new owner of Ashley Towers.

The audit notes several issues with this second loan. Among them:

- The loan was approved for the purchase of the complex despite Tower Place apartments having already owned the property for more than two years.

- Work completed by the new owners did not include cost estimates and duplicated work already completed by the first owner.

- The property eventually ended up in foreclosure.

In a letter to HUD officials, Greger said her department "does not dispute many of the criticisms associated with the Ashley Towers project" but the city "entered into the agreement in good faith."

Changes made

As a result of the audit, the Housing and Neighborhoods Department underwent a series of changes to shore up its Home program.

"We have received HUD-sponsored training and technical assistance on most of the issues and re-worked our policies and guidelines as a result," Greger said.

In addition, she said that department-wide changes were made to better monitor Home, and other programs administered by the department.

"Before I came to the city, there were virtually no internal controls set up on the program," she said.

The changes put in place since the audit have earned HUD's approval, and the city received $2.7 million through the Home program in both 2009 and 2010.

"HUD is satisfied with the city's response ... and remains optimistic that when the final [payment] is made that the audit recommendations and responses will have been satisfactorily met and the matter officially closed," wrote Joe Phillips, a HUD spokesman, in a statement.

Greger said that no repercussions were taken against staff members who oversaw the program because they are no longer with the department.



Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-14/story/housing-audit-leaves-jacksonville-hook-27-million#ixzz2dsQsZG7R

Hmm, if we're misusing funds, as much as I love Jax, we should be stripped. Overall, it would be better for another community to get that money instead of us using it to destroy, blight and further economically depress our own neighborhoods.

I would guess that the loss of federal funding for a majority of projects would at lease cause some who are causing the problems we face to go away.  That in itself would be a huge gain for Jacksonville.  What is really scary is that if this kind of easy (by comparison) to find misuse and graft (Because why else hide it? Why else not just do it right like a thousand other cities do?) is going on, imagine what we have yet to begin to find out about.

Know what Strider?  You are correct.  Federal funding has been the core motivator for the interest and involvement of several elected officials in Jacksonville.  It's easy money to use and abuse and there is a "ton" of it.  Frankly, if some of it were to be taken, some of the "users" of the system will find the piggy bank has dried up and just stay the heck out of local politics.  That alone would be a very good thing for Jacksonville.

[HangingMoth]

Wasn't the owner of 129 2nd going to file a lawsuit? What could a possible outcome of that look like?