Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are huge in probably every city across the country and Jacksonville is no exception. It funds much of what is good, federal dollar wise, locally, unfortunately, it also seems to be subject to the same misuse as has been shown for NSP funding and, big surprise here, by the very same people. One big difference is the CDBG is on-going and NSP is a one time thing. Losing any part of CDBG funding could be a huge blow to the city. Letting one or more departments and their management put these funds at risk seems to have been an ongoing problem for the last two mayors and their administrations.
Here's a letter instructing the city what it needed to do in regards to the potentially historic properties. Care to guess who did and did not do it?
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/645039fd-dcda-4d06-96e6-e3840a7932f8.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/645039fd-dcda-4d06-96e6-e3840a7932f8.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/c45a8d13-4346-472c-95e0-aa7ed6a13ee8.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/c45a8d13-4346-472c-95e0-aa7ed6a13ee8.jpg.html)
$517k for demolition and clearance in 2008. CDBG money.
What will the Feds do? We already have it that the 106 reviews are required. While we have chosen to concentrate on the demolitions, the fact of the matter is that it needs to be done for all those repairs, ETC as well. Look at the list on the first post. Everyone on that list was required to do those reviews.
So how big of a crime is not following these rules? Is it a misdemeanor or more like felony murder? You know how us preservationists feel about that, but how would the Feds feel?
Well, I look at it this way. The Feds went through the trouble of passing laws that require this of the local governments (Many if not most other cities do it automatically), then they require both State level and Federal level reviews as well as public input. Hard not to think that if they found the idea of trying to protect historic housing stock, even potential historic housing stock, important enough to require that level of review, totally and most likely purposefully ignoring that you have to do it seems like a pretty criminal thing to do.
QuoteSec. 5311.* Remedies for noncompliance with community development requirements[* Section 111 of the Act]
Features
Also in this Section:
(a) Notice and hearing by Secretary
(b) Referral of matters to Attorney General
(c) Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals
From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5311]
Notice and hearing; termination, reduction, or limitation of payments by Secretary
If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, shall--
terminate payments to the recipient under this chapter, or
reduce payments to the recipient under this chapter by an amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not expended in accordance with this chapter, or
limit the availability of payments under this chapter to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such failure to comply.
Referral of matters to Attorney General; institution of civil action by Attorney General
In lieu of, or in addition to, any action authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may, if he has reason to believe that a recipient has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.
Upon such a referral the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this chapter which was not expended in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals; filing of record of proceedings in court by Secretary; affirmance, etc., of findings of Secretary; exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court; review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari or certification
Any recipient which receives notice under subsection (a) of this section of the termination, reduction, or limitation of payments under this chapter may, within sixty days after receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action. The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.
The Secretary shall file in the court record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection has been urged before the Secretary.
The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify his findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and he shall also file such modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and shall also file his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action.
Upon the filing of the record with the court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.
(Pub. L. 93-383, title I, Sec. 111, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 650.)
Legislative Annotations
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Fcomm_planning%2Fcommunitydevelopment%2Frulesandregs%2Flaws%2Fsec5311
^WOW! You guys are just knocking it out of the park.
Another thing to think about; who is responsible at the city level for making sure the proper reviews were done? Elaine Spencer, Chief of Housing and Community Development, would certainly be on the hook for any reviews not done on projects listed under Housing Services and what organizations like Operation New Hope does, like for instance we can see that for the apartments planned for 8th St, Operation New Hope of having a public comment meeting like they are required to do. This is why I think we will find that the Housing Services projects have been managed much better than the demolitions and clearances. Plus, those housing programs actually help people.
Any funding that is for Demolition and Clearance goes to Kimberly Scott, Chief of Municipal Code Compliance Department. Anyone who has had dealing with this department knows that Ms Scott runs her department without any regard for the residents of Jacksonville. So it goes without saying that this is also the department which ignores the federal requirements and used NSP and CDBG funding to demolish house after house without regard to what the public may want. Without regard to what is right or wrong.
Stopping improper and possibly illegal demolitions is just part of this battle. There are very troubling issues stemming from how Ms Scott runs her department. And why is she so protected by the Office of General Counsel, with Jason Teal telling the Historic Preservation Commission not to question Ms Scott's actions?
One thing I find very ironic is that the funding Ms Scott improperly used from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program helped fund her mission of doing quite the opposite. Rather then help the communities as it was intended, it has been used to destroy and further damage those communities. In Springfield for instance, the rolling fines have been assuring that more houses will get neglected rather than restored. That the actions of MCC continue to hinder the repairs they ask for rather than performing any positive roll in the community.
Of course, then there is the Division Chief, Mr Ashanta-Barker. While he may not have been in his position as long as Ms. Scott, one would think he would find out the requirements of spending those multiple millions of federal dollars his department was responsible for. Instead, we got poorly researched excuses from him about the demolitions.
This is why I feel that investigating the funding issues is only the tip of the iceberg. Why these requirements were ignored by Department Chiefs and Division Heads that are well educated and intelligent will be very revealing.
Quote from: Noone on October 29, 2013, 03:23:54 AM
^WOW! You guys are just knocking it out of the park.
And...
Wow. If the City loses CDBG funding, this will only hurt those neighborhoods that need it most. Sad.
FSU As it stands the CDBG funds were being used to hurt the neighborhoods they were supposed to help. Right now the City needs to remove the individuals in charge when all of this was allowed. They either knew the process was being corrupted on purpose in order to demolish homes and hand over demo jobs or they were unaware, which means they are incompetent when it comes to managing funding coming through their departments and meeting the goals of preservation. Either way this falls on the shoulders of those in charge starting with Kim Scott.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on October 29, 2013, 03:08:32 PM
FSU As it stands the CDBG funds were being used to hurt the neighborhoods they were supposed to help. Right now the City needs to remove the individuals in charge when all of this was allowed. They either knew the process was being corrupted on purpose in order to demolish homes and hand over demo jobs or they were unaware, which means they are incompetent when it comes to managing funding coming through their departments and meeting the goals of preservation. Either way this falls on the shoulders of those in charge starting with Kim Scott.
^^ +1000
That's why in front of City Council on June 25th I demanded that Kim Scott be stripped of her duties and on October 22nd I demanded it again, and included Terrance Ashante-Barker. There may be more heads that need to roll and we're still digging.