Duane Finger interview (2000-05-19)

              [Track time: 0:43:12]
CARVER LIVING NEWSPAPER PROJECT: ORAL HISTORY
Interview with Duane Finger, Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority
Interviewed by Kathy Colwell, VCU Research Associate, (#1)
Barbara Abernathy, CACIL President (#2)
Interviewer questions/comments are indicated by bold
Date May 19, 2000
[Interviewer has included a note that the microphone was short circuiting, and there is a lot of background noise.]
(#1) It is Friday, May 19th I believe. I'm Kathy Colwell. I'll be interviewing Duane Finger of the Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority. Barbara Abernathy will also be asking questions, and the other voice you will hear is Selma Taylor, who is also with Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority. What I'd like you to focus on, you've been with the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, you mentioned, for 30 years.
28
(#1) 28. Close. Can you tell us a little about how the Authority evolved in the course of that time. How has the approach with the neighborhoods changed?
Well, I can tell you that when I started to work in 1972, the Authority was already in the midst of a major change in management style and in the way that federal government programs were carried out. I was hired by Bob Everton, who was the director of my department, and eventually became executive director until a year ago. He really believed in citizen participation. And he believed that you share everything with the community that you know, and that generally you both kind of come to the same conclusions if given the same facts. And he also said always tell the good with the bad when you go into a community. Tell them how you're going to hurt them, tell them how you're going to help them. Because everything has a down side and you have to be very clear going in what the downsides are because people need to be given realistic expectations, they need to have the truth, they need to know that it won't always be rosy and that it will take a lot of time to carry out any programs. So there was a lot of change at our agency. The old director, Mr. Faye, we used to call him Emperor Faye, in fact they said Emperor Faye and his [legions of bulldozers?], because he really built all of the public housing in this city, but he had not been involved in neighborhood revitalization. And he brought Bob Everton in from Charlotte North Carolina because he knew he was not going to be able to go through the give and take of the neighborhood planning process. That he could not do it, and he would not do it, and he knew that he needed a younger man, and Bob was brought in to lead that effort, and Bob was my mentor, and Bob trained me and helped me learn over the last 28 years, you know, how to work with people and my style and my approach comes from Bob and also from being a southerner and growing up in the south during the civil rights movement, which I was involved in.
(#1) So that definitely influenced your feeling toward this?
It influenced me. I wanted to work with the people and I wanted to work on housing. I made a conscious decision in college to get involved in the NAACP, to get involved in city planning and urban history. I studied the history of minorities in the city, including African Americans,
transAtlantic slave trade, the whole history of African Americans was part of my focus in school. So when I came to work at the Housing Authority, that's what got me hired. I already had experience working in African American communities and working with people and I had helped organize against the Vietnam War, and I had been involved in the George McGovern campaign, and I was also involved in the civil rights movement and the NAACP in North Carolina. I was a member of the NAACP. And so I came to Richmond with a pretty open mind. And with the commitment I gained really it goes back to John F. Kennedy who was my hero when I was growing up, the public service of making a difference, trying to help people help themselves, and knowing also that I was white in a black community I also realized that they were the leaders, not me. And I wrote a paper in college about working in a black community, because I was thinking about it even then. Basically I said that I keep lead, but we're in it together, and progressive people should work together for the betterment of the neighborhoods and of the people. And that's the what I ended up working in the communities and listening carefully, and trying also to use my professional knowledge and experience to help people get the information to make good decisions about the community. And also be open to the community's point of view and to the knowledge that they have and the strength that they bring to their community. And that was also appropriate at the Housing Authority because there were people who wanted the Housing Authority to move in that direction. From being kind of the Authority to being the partner.
(#1) Was that dictated nationally by the federal government that housing authorities need to move in another direction?
I don't think it was dictated, but it was definitely a trend nationally to begin working with communities and to involve the people in the planning process. And I think some of it came as a result of civil rights legislation, some of it came as a result of the great society, and the federal programs that were begun in the mid 60s to help slum and poverty, and to help eliminate poverty. There was a lot of going back to the grass roots to help to develop the community strength and to help communities help themselves. So that was a national trend, but you couldn't implement that with people who didn't believe in it. And to the foresight of Bob Everton who believed in it, the people he hired believed in it, and our department I think was the cutting edge of this type of effort in the city of Richmond.
(#1) How about Richmond as a city?
The city went through a lot of the same changes with the city counsel becoming African American during the mid 70s, the civil rights movement affected that, and you could see the population of the leadership of the city go from majority white, practically almost exclusively white, to majority black with an interracial leadership. And that happened at the same time these programs were starting in the city of Richmond in Randolph, Fulton, Washington Park, George Mason, different areas, which were to provide for a major change in those neighborhoods which were primarily slum and blight neighborhoods. And we moved from redevelopment to more of a redevelopment conservation effort which is what we have in Carver. Its saving the housing that can be save, and saving the character and the historic qualities as well as taking out the slum and dilapidated housing which' was built to very bad standards. And the thing about Carver is that part of Carver's an extension of Jackson Ward, which is middle class, and well built brick structures, and there was also some very poorly built housing along Catherine, Leigh and in fact, down in the Expressway. 195 was one of the worst slums in the city, and people don't remember.
2
There used to be a huge gas works, all these big huge gas tanks, oil over there, I mean natural gas, they were all rusted, it was outhouses, it was open sewage, houses without plumbing and wiring, this was in the 50s, people were driving horse carts and there were chickens, pigs, and it was almost like a 3rd world place, that part of Carver which an issue of the Redevelopment Program called Hartshorn Homes was built there. Then Carver had some deteriorated housing along Catherine and Leigh, but it also had this very nice housing along Clay and Marshall, which was all brick and might have an extension into Jackson Ward, but it was both the haves and the have nots of the black community. That's the way I saw it. The housing reflected the same designs across the expressway. And when Belvidere cut through it and cut those neighborhoods in half, and there was two solid blocks of housing that was just removed to make room for the 6 lanes of Belividere, and then Carver, basically that was in the 50s. Carver always had its own identity basically back to the 1950s. And the leadership that I met was the leadership they had growing up in Carver in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s. They'd been living there their whole lives. They went to school in Carver, evolving? the Hartshorn School, which was kind of a private school for professional blacks. A lot of people associated with Virginia Union, so that it was a very vibrant community. And the leadership that I met in the late 70s in Carver, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Peters and others, were those leaders that had been working for years to get the city to pay attention to Carver.
(#1) Tell me something about their personalities. When we do the living history play, they are bound to have prominent roles, and so we will need to know how to portray those two women.
Well, I'll tell you, also I wanted to mention Mrs. Williams. Who was in the same generation and who is different from those two women. She was a very devout Catholic, went to the Sacred Heart Cathedral, and was the first black Catholic I met in any of these neighborhoods. Most blacks were Baptist or Southern Baptist. But Mrs. Smith was the core of Carver in the sense of the continuity in the leadership going all the way back to the 40s. She'd been president of the civic association from the early 50s on. I think she's probably the only person that had it until she passed. She was the kindest, gentlest, the sweetest woman I've ever known, and she had the patience of Job, and she also had vision and could stick with what she was the needs of the neighborhood. Because of the era that she grew up in, her leadership style was much more laid back and was more accommodating and consensus oriented. She didn't like conflict, she didn't like people to get into arguments with each other, she wanted to have peace, and that was the way it was presented. But she had a lot of strength and she also had endurance and commitment to make sure that a Carver issue was put on the map. Because there was a lot of resistance to Carver being identified as a redevelopment, conservation, or any kind of area that would receive special funding. Because when I started developing the program with Ms. Smith, they had been trying for ten years to be designated as a rehab area to receive assistance. And nobody would pay any attention to them. The city of Richmond.
(#1) Those who weren't paying any attention to them, what did they see as their future?
They thought there were other neighborhoods that were more significant. And they had their eye on Church Hill or other neighborhoods that were larger or more well known. Carver wasn't that well known to the city of Richmond. They didn't know about Carver. Its like it wasn't on the map. Until Miss Smith contacted me and we started working slowly to get it organized and the community also at that time, had some leadership, younger leadership that kind of evolved and
3
II
that would include Preddy Ray and Cassandra Ray, his wife, Barbara Abernathy, and Miss Hawley, and a number of people who now have become middle-aged and are in positions of leadership. But that was a nice combination of the older leaders and the younger leaders which gave it a lot of energy and a lot of commitment and also some education. People who were more educated maybe grew up in the civil rights era and were more willing to press for the needs of the community. But the combination of that and Mrs. Smith's personality and her kindness and her consensus building was a magnificent strength in the beginnings of this effort. Which started in 1984/85 with a neighborhood plan, and it grew to the Carver redevelopment/conservation area in 1987. The new city manager at that time, Bobb, decided he liked what he saw, he liked the people. The former city manager, Bill Leidinger(?), Bill was their city councilman at the time, decided that it would be good for him to show that he could be positive about a black community because he had been kind of the champion of the old white community and I think he saw an opportunity in Carver at least politically as a way for him to make a statement that he could help a downtrodden community, and an African American community too. And he threw his support behind it. Between him and city manager Bobb, and the Authority, Bob Everton and I, there was a special meeting held at the Authority, and Miss Smith and several of the leaders came, and it was called the housing task force of the city. And at that meeting we managed to bring in a slide show to show the conditions in Carver at that time, which was really bad, especially on Catherine and Leigh, and the fact that this was a major interest to the city of Richmond, off the interstate, that it was a major thoroughfare running through the city of Richmond from Hermitage Road all the way over through Newtown and Carver, by Maggie Walker at that time when it was still open, through Jackson Ward to the Coliseum to the downtown campus of MCV and the city hall complex, then across Martin Luther King bridge to Church Hill. So they started seeing it as maybe a more significant entranceway, and that helped focus on Carver. And then we also had some incredible slides which showed appalling conditions. People had no idea that these conditions still existed in the area in the 80s. We're talking 1984, 1985, 1986, when people couldn't remember that there were still houses with a single light bulb hanging, and with outhouses, and with unbelievably poor conditions. And this was prevalent throughout the 700, 800, and 900 blocks of Catherine and Leigh. But we also focused on the historic character, and the fact that it would be a conservation as well as redevelopment. We wouldn't be demolishing everything. And we had learned over time, and the federal government programs had learned over time, to be both rehab as well as conservation, and that preserving houses could be done and it was feasible to find ways for lower and moderate income people to actually renovate their houses with low interest loans. So that was a big focus and with a lot of support from the community lead by Mrs. Smith, and some allies that she had been able to influence on city, it was approved in 1987 as a redevelopment/conservation area. And city manager Bobb put up the first $250,000, because it was already past the budget process. He stuck in $250,000 to start the program, which was not a lot of money, but it was enough to get it going. That was the first step. The next year we got a half a million. But then on it was pretty much a fixture in the budget because it got approved, the leadership coalesced, and other people came in, it was John Brown who came in and helped organize the neighborhood and rezone the neighborhood, and provide training to the citizens on how to be heard, how to get organized, how to develop and think for themselves. And all that time I was involved, every step of the way. I kind of feel like I'm the guardian angel of Carver sometimes. I always feel like whenever they need somebody to kind of push things for the city, then I would go down and talk to the city manager in his office, or behind the scenes help the community organize a presentation that would win support. And so
4
every year we were funded. And then we also in 1990, got Newtown West added to the whole program. And that was slowly, by housing repairs, and then it became an acquisition/redevelopment area as well. Because we always felt the two areas needed to come together. At least in terms of redevelopment. They are both really similar types of neighborhoods.
(#1) Newtown West though still does not have the zoning changes, right? Has that been passed?
Oh yeah, that was passed in 1990. From industrial to residential.
(#1) But then I was thinking there needed to be another zoning of some properties for the conservation plan to become fully implementable.
That was accomplished. Now we basically got in through the back door. We started a housing repair, and we started acquiring property without a conservation/redevelopment effort from willing sellers. Once it had been rezoned, then people who had held a property for industrial use knew that their time had come and there wasn't going to be any way they could sell it as an industrial site. So we started buying from willing sellers abandoned and dilapidated housing, and we got habitat to come in initially because no one else would think about Newtown West as a housing area because it used to be the slaughterhouse, and it was really very depressed housing area. It was not at all like Carver in terms of housing stock. But the leadership was very similar.
(#1) Those were very, very small houses. There's nothing you could do with them.
Little itty bitty 15 foot wide houses, one story shotgun. So we started and started, and for several years we just chipped away at the really bad stuff. And then eventually in the mid 90s it became a redevelopment area, a redevelopment/conservation area, so we were able to keep in tandem, and then under Neighborhood in Bloom they were combined for funding purposes into a single funding project. Because really the city sees it as the Leigh Street corridor and these two residential areas on both sides of Maggie Walker, which is now going to become the governor's school. And so the city has grown to recognize this area as a significant neighborhood, and one of the most significant neighborhoods of the city as far as people from the outside seeing Richmond.
(#1) It sounds as though you have made peace with some of the methods you have to use to sell the neighborhood. Even though your heart might be in one area, this should be done because it's the right thing to do.
I think there's always been that. I've always done what I thought was right. And my boss, to his credit, never asked me to do something that I didn't believe in. And he knew that he couldn't ask me to do something that I didn't believe in. And so I've stood up to the Authority and the city when they would plan, or when they would try to do things that were not appropriate for this neighborhood, and it was not the will of the people. There's been a lot of times when the people just wanted to demolish houses, or just to build apartments, or not stick to home ownership, just try to build anything back to get it built as quickly as possible. And sometimes its better to take more time so that the market can develop than to just rush in and build the cheapest housing you can find at the time. We learned that lesson in Randolph. That its better to let the market develop and be more deliberate because over time you are going to develop a real mixed income
5
neighborhood, not just building low income apartments or housing that will eventually, is going, to deteriorate and become a slum again in ten more years.
(#1) Do you have a threshold though, I mean, you have to be able to maintain some momentum as you reach critical mass?
Every year you continue to chip away, and you keep focusing on blocks that are in the worst condition, and you keep the neighborhood focusing. Because they can easily splinter, and everyone says I want it in my area. There must be at least 40 blocks in Carver and if you spread that money all over Carver, we'd have a little house here and a little house there and nothing would ever have shown any results, and they wouldn't have had the Neighborhood in Bloom effort so successful to this day if there hadn't been groundwork to keep focused, to take care of the worse housing, to then develop good designs to rebuild the neighborhood on a block by block basis. So the Neighborhood in Bloom program is nothing new. Carver's been doing it since the beginning.
(#1) When you mentioned neighborhood in bloom a couple of times, I understand that has changed the way the communities are funded in some regards, they have less power?
I think that's true, but I think behind it all the communities still have the final say if they're willing to stand up. I know Carver does. I mean basically, they are still in charge of their neighborhood. They're in charge of which blocks are selected. The city staff is now much more involved, and there also are city objectives which are broader in some ways, and we've always reflected those broader objectives, too, but there's always been a give and take. The neighborhood realizes that when they use federal funds or city funds, there's some things, some power they give up, but they also gain influence, and they get an inside track to, and they have a powerful influence over the decisions that are made. And the community has always had a political advocate that stood up for them, from Bill Leidinger and city manager Bobb, to mayor West, to Roy West who came in and really took Carver under his wing and supported it, and continued to make sure it got the funding. And now Tim Kane who loves Carver and is continuing to focus the city's efforts on there. And they can see the vision, I think. I don't think any of them had the vision until they got to Carver, had a chance to talk to the people, and could see that there really was this potential and this tremendous neighborhood that really needed to be nurtured at the time.
(#1) What are some of the characteristics of Carver and personalities like Barbara that are able to convey that to individuals?
Well, I think it started with Miss Smith as I said, who had a very strong religious background, faith in her community and God, and who could present ideas very simply and straightforward. And she presented a very sympathetic figure for people of that era who wanted to do something to help out. Now you can imagine this hulking Bill Leidinger standing next to this very petite elderly lady, and she knew exactly what she was doing. She knew exactly how to go down to the city council and talk before city council to get their sympathy and to win their support for the program. But the key was uniting the community behind this plan, which she did. And she provided very strong leadership. I remember when the plan was approved in 1987, there was over 100 people at the Moore Street Church. And there was a handful of people who didn't want the program, mainly outsiders, one of which is still now agitating in Blackwell. But basically, he was actually asked to leave because he was disrupting the meeting. But the community knew
6
there was a lot to be gained from this, and the partnership with the Authority would give them clout and they would have with the Authority staff at the grass roots level, a direct line into deciding how the future of their neighborhood would be carried out. And then of course, for Mrs. Smith's staff, and I swore on her grave that I was going to say this (?), that was out by the cemetery out by the river. Because I went to the funeral and I was very upset about it because she didn't get to see it, she just got to see it started, and all over the city there's been a lot of leaders who saw the programs begin but didn't see them through because they were older people. And Miss Peters who took over for Mrs. Smith also was a whole different style of leadership, but at the same time, she represented the old generation, and kind of the discipline and the Authority of a school teacher, an English school teacher. It was very different kind of style than Mrs. Smith, but at the same time she was a sympathetic figure when it came to city council. But she also knew how to keep people in line. I know she used to let city manager Bobb have it time after time when he, and myself, you know she'd take me to task if things weren't going the way she felt they should be. She was somewhat difficult to work with, but I found that over time if you just worked with Miss Peters and just listened to her, that her bark was worse than her bite. She was actually very kind lady behind it all, but she was used to being in charge. Being an English teacher. She was very proud of her heritage, and her parents. So there was conflict though while Miss Peters was the leader because she was not a consensus builder. Probably that was because she was kind of old and a little bit out of touch with the younger generation. And she, basically there was some conflict within the community and several young leaders kind of backed out of the organization because they just couldn't get along with Miss Peters. Nonetheless, Miss Peters and Roy West worked very well together because they both had the same kind of Authority, and Dr. West was an educator, and I think Dr. West's support for the program did a lot for his relationship with Miss Peters. And he was a real advocate for the neighborhood. And continued to make sure that Carver was getting the priority for the funding.
(#1) What I heard you say several times is you've got to have this personal advocate, don't you?
Yes, absolutely. You have to have the political, and you have to have advocates at every level along the process of decision making, from the grass roots to the community workers like myself, planners, you have to get to know the community and you have to be a part of the community. I always felt like I was a member of the Carver community, I always paid dues to the civic association. I knew I couldn't vote on their big issues, but I liked to feel that I was one of the family, one of the neighborhood, and I think they always made me feel that way. You know, because after you spend thousands of hours working with people, night and day, and over the years, you really have more at stake than just a job. You have your personal commitment to the community, and you want to see it through and make sure that things you promised or tried to carry out are actually done and that the community actually gets what they deserve, and have support for their programs. They have that.
(#1) One of the things we are going to talk about now is empowering the neighborhood. How you facilitate that when you are the fiscal agent, you have the expertise because you have to know the laws. And so as part of that empowering the neighborhood, I'd like you to include a little bit about the role that the Task Force for the Preservation of the Minority Community, John Brown and that group, how they either helped or hindered the process, from your perspective.
7
Well, I'm not going to get into that too much because I don't want to pass judgement. I do feel that by and large the task force was a positive force in neighborhood revitalization in the city. Although most of the properties they originally have renovated have all been lost because of poor management. You know, lack of quality construction in some cases. And I think basically being one of the first non-profit 501C3 corporations they made the mistakes that everyone else has now been able to avoid. But on the other hand I think the task force was probably just a single handed creation of one person. And that would be Preddy Ray.
(#1) John Brown?
No, no, Preddy Ray is the owner, he's really the guy who set up and established and ran the whole thing. All the decisions were made by him, and that was the weakness in the whole thing. He couldn't do everything. And I know that they also tried to be something to all people. You know, they wanted to be a housing developer and they wanted to be politically involved and they wanted to be an advocate and they wanted also to train and lead the community and they weren't really a part of the community. They were a CDC. They had a special interest, they owned a property to be renovated. There's a big difference between a CDC and the Authority. We don't own anything once its renovated. We want to put ourself out of business. And we really are a public body responsible to a lot of different task makers, like the city council, to HUD, to the community. And I think that over time you learn how to balance all these different interest groups. And you also learn to advocate for the project and for the people, for the neighborhood that you are working in. And you develop that relationship and if you're committed to it, and if you have a long term relationship, then you basically have committed yourself, the agency, to do what's best for the community while at the same time balancing what the city wants what HUD wants, and what all the rules and regs are. But I think a CDC in many cases a lot of times they have their own financial gain to think about because they are basically supporting themselves just like any corporation. Any money they make goes back into supporting their salaries, and giving them the ability to grow and to develop a corporation which a corporate structure means whether they make a profit, that doesn't mean they are a charitable organization. I mean they're self-supporting. And they need the money to support themselves so decisions kind of get mixed up. Not being a public entity. The interest of the corporation versus the interest of the neighborhood are not always the same. That's been one of the weaknesses of the whole effort is that its assumed that the corporation is always going to be, because its made up of people "from the neighborhood", that its going to have the neighborhood interest at heart, but that's always, the hidden agenda is always other interests that aren't really in sync with the real interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Because I feel like the interest of the neighborhood is the homeowners and the civic association. They're the people who have nothing to gain except the benefit of that neighborhood. They're not going to get any money, they're volunteers, they're the people that the Authority and the city ought to be listening to, because they are the ones who have lived through everything, and have the experience to make the right decisions toward the neighborhood as a whole. The CDC is a very positive instrument and is another tool, but it should not lead the neighborhood, and it should be obedient to the neighborhood. And I think that's very hard for a corporation to do because they have their own mission, their own interests that have to come out. I think as a public agency we try to look out for the whole public need. Of course we have interests too. We believe in our programs, and we need the public funding in order to keep programs going, and also to keep our jobs. If we don't do our jobs, then we don't get the funding. Its much more abrupt because the city council could take that money away in a
8
minute. If we don't have the neighborhood support, the money dries up. So we have to be responsive, and you have to have the right people that know how to be responsive. Its not always that easy, even for a Housing Authority. Because we have our own interests as well. But in the end we're publicly responsible, we're publicly out there, anybody could criticize us, anybody could ask for the public records and see exactly what's going on. And if we don't keep it above board, its going to be obvious to everyone. So I think that's the benefit of an agency like the Authority although we do have our own ego and our own kind of sense of who we are, and the interaction between the staff and the community kind of keeps that in check. The staff is really committed and its professional, and they see their job as the liaison for the community and the city and the people who provide the money. Then they will help balance those kind of forces. Plus the commission is the Authority appointed by city council. So they're going to be responsible to council. But the staff really has a lot of influence. The staff presents itself in a professional way, and if the community and the staff work together well they can have a very strong relationship and have a very strong influence on city powers.
(#1) Has the authority always worked the way it appears you are working now? You're each assigned to one neighborhood so you establish a relationship.
That's a management style. There are some people who think you can just interchange people, but I don't believe that. I believe you have to have a sense of ownership and a sense of belonging, and a sense of commitment to a project. That's why a project manager, that's his project. He's a part of the community, and his interest in everything is reflected in that community. And he believes in his program and has made this personal commitment. So I think that's important.
(#1) Is it difficult to find people to work for the housing authority that have that passion?
I don't think so. There are people like that, but you have to have leadership that recognizes it. And that's what I feel in th° past was, I'm not going to speak for always, but the leadership has been there and the people I've worked with have been committed to that. And committed to delegating authority and giving people the reign to lead and to get involved, and to make decisions and to take ownership of the project. That's important. And that's how leadership styles and management styles, if you get the wrong leadership or management styles, the whole thing can change. I'm a very stubborn person and I've made commitments my whole life, and my reputation means everything to me. I'm not going to allow anybody to do something that's not in the best interest of the community and the city, and those two interests both have to be met. Which means keeping the politics out of it and just doing the right thing when it has to be done.
(#1) You said something there, the best thing for the community. Have you ever had a community come to you that truly they feel it's the best thing but they don't understand what the ramifications could be?
Oh sure, that happens all the time.
(#1) All the time?
And there's always give and take. Between a community and the Authority and the city for that matter. But I think the Authority has always been closer to the community than anybody ever realized. I don't think the city realizes how close we are and how much of an advocate we are behind the scenes because we don't take a real prominent role in the public sector. The city used
9
to get very upset because communities would march down there and would speak up for their communities, and they would know just as much about the plan and about the budget as the city. Or as the Authority staff. And I think they were upset at the political pressure that came from that. They thought it was the Housing Authority's fault, but it wasn't. That's the community, and the sharing of information, and the strength of good intelligence.
(#1) They're taking the initiative. When you look at Carver, we have all these industrial buildings now in the neighborhood.
On the perimeters.
(#1) On the perimeters. Right. Fortunately, they are all on the perimeters.
Except for one big one coming down.
(#1) Which one is coming down?
That's the bindery.
(#1) Yes. It backs up on the park or something as I recall.
Yes. That's going to be a beautiful row of new homeowner houses. That'll be the signature of the whole neighborhood in many ways. It consists of twelve new houses across from the new city park that the community fought so hard for.
(#1) Okay, is that the one that you just approved the design of? The houses that the design was just approved, those :are on Catherine, aren't they?
Yes. That'll be brick and frame minihomes. The character they decided to develop. We'd like to see most of the new homes as brick because they present a real solid image. And a lot of the neighborhood is brick, certainly on Clay Street and Marshall.
(#1) What do you see as the best use for those other larger structures?
I think the most logical use is housing. Apartments or condominiums. Some of them could become offices, but I don't think there is really any retail commercial retail units, because you've got all the buildings on Broad Street half of which are still vacant and are not being used. Broad Street should be the commercial area where you have restaurants and shops and stuff. And then you have a transition from the commercial to maybe higher density residential between Broad and Marshall, and then single family detached and homeowner housing from Marshall over to Leigh. That's a good transition, and it also puts a lot of people on the street. And my goal and the way I see it is the more people we get on the street, the healthier and more positive the neighborhood is going to be. And I mean young people, middle-aged people, whoever. As long as they have a purpose to their life and they're going about contributing to society, I'm not really upset about students and student housing as long as its well managed and well designed. But I don't think it should all be student housing. I think that there is a parallel market for professional rental housing and professional condominiums. And that may come in a few years, but if the market just takes off and people quickly just develop, and they don't give it time to mature, then they'll make some mistakes. And the city has stayed out of it, they just want to see something develop. It's the same entity that we ran into in Randolph, when people said just let them build anything, just get the things built out. Originally they were just going to build thirty thousand dollar ranch style houses. And if they had all built out and they had all been the same there would have been no character and no development, and you wouldn't have a mixed income neighborhood, you'd just have primarily a low income neighborhood. If this thing goes too quickly its going to have a lot of student housing, its going to be designed for students, and in the end they may overbuild for that population, and then they're going to have apartments they can't rent to anybody else because they're too small or they're cramped or they're not designed for the
10
general population. They'll have to go under and then they'll have to rebuild them into professional apartments.
(#1) How do you get them to drag their feet, though, with this process to slow down the student housing? Because it really seems to be forces out on the block.
I don't know enough about the market forces that are driving that, that much about it, other than I think there are developers who are looking down the line to worry about the professional housing instead of just students. And there are developers who just look at the quick bucks. And they're racing to get it built because the people who get it built first are the ones who are going to capture the market of the new students coming in, and at a certain point there is going to be more student housing in and around the fan than the market is going to be able to absorb. And if they're not careful they're going to box themselves in
(tape ends here, short in the microphone?)
11