Page One

Opponents of a proposed University Avenue housing project aimed at housing persons with disabilities and limited income say they’re not NIMBYs – Not-in-My-BackYarders. 

Rather, they argue that their opposition to the project, proposed by Affordable Housing Associates at 1719-1725 University Ave., is based on both the would-be developer’s inadequate explanation of the project design and his reticence to be specific about the population expected to live there. 

Project supporters “are playing the NIMBY card” against neighbors, said Jim Wemmer, who lives directly behind the project. Wemmer contends that AHA Executive Director Ali Kashani is being deliberately obtuse, refusing to provide specifics of the project he wants to build. 

“I want to know who my neighbors are going to be,” he said, adding, “(Kashani) won’t answer questions. He says, ‘We’ll look into it.’” 

At its meeting Tuesday night, the City Council voted unanimously to delay voting on a request from AHA for $450,000 to help purchase the property. With Councilmember Linda Maio recusing herself from the vote – she lives nearby the project and has worked professionally with the project developer – the council has only four liberal/progressive votes from people who clearly favor the project. Five councilmembers are needed to approve the purchase of the property. 

The council will be asked to vote on the funding June 13, after the developer has met with neighbors and detailed his plans. If the council approves funding at that time, the developer will still have to get his plans approved by the Zoning Adjustment Board, whose vote can be appealed to the City Council. 

Kashani apologized to the council for the lack of specifics to this point, explaining that he originally had three parcels for the project, but lost one. 

“We changed the project because we lost part of the property,” Kashani said. 

The reconfiguration came about when the Flamingo Motel at 1761 University decided to take advantage of its first rights to purchase the parcel on which it is located, one of the three parcels on which Affordable Housing Associates had counted on for the project. The real estate agent, selling parcels of a deceased client, had not realized in the early stages of the deal that the motel held those rights. 

Kashani holds the right to purchase the two other parcels until the end of June. 

“We don’t know how big it’s going to be - five stories or two stories,” Mayor Shirley Dean said. “It’s a challenge to you, Mr. Kashani. Either you can meet the questions that are being thrown at you, or you can’t.” 

Kashani, however, says he is now able to outline his proposal: The project he hopes to build would be a four-story, 30- to 40-unit structure. The fourth floor would extend only to the northern half of the building, so that light would not be obstructed to the parcel behind it. 

About a third of the apartments would have three bedrooms. Rents would be affordable to persons earning 30 to 60 percent of the median income – that is a family of three which earns from about $18,000 to $35,500 annually. Monthly rents for a two-bedroom apartment would be $443 to $886 and rents for a three-bedroom apartment would be $513 to $1,025. 

There would be a resident manager and house rules would be enforced, Kashani said. 

“There’s nothing to fear from this project,” argued Councilmember Dona Spring, who noted the housing would be for the working poor, disabled people on disability insurance who have worked in the past, and retired persons. 

Councilmember Margaret Breland pointed to the three-bedroom component of the proposed project. 

“That’s something we need to see,” she said. 

Councilmembers grilled Kashani about what disabilities the population might have, whom he would serve. In particular, they said they feared that there may be drug addicts among them. 

“It’s been a long time since I have seen a project which has so very frightened people,” said Councilmember Betty Olds. 

Kashani told the council that the project is designed for people who can live independently – not for people who would need the kind of controls that a substance abuse program would provide. 

Moreover, these kinds of arguments are often a smokescreen, he said. 

“A lot of people who oppose low income housing don’t come out and say it. What people are raising is basically, that they don’t want this housing,” he said.