Plastic Alto with Mark Weiss

Today I am shedding up on “low income housing tax credit” sometimes referred to as “lie-tech” or “lit-C”. Dig? I have a list of 31 TLA three-letter acronyms on the topic. And since this is a music column, it brings to mind RZA and Wu Tang Clan. There was also a band in SF on Prawn Song Records called Alphabet soup.

First, the meal, your acronyms. (Then, the dessert, the music):

AFR applicable federal rate
AHIC Affordable Housing Investors Council
AMI area median income
ASC accounting standards codification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Community Reinvestment Act
DDA difficult development area
EITF Emerging Issues Task Force
FASB Federal Accounting Standards Board
FHA Federal Housing Administration
FSA federal savings association
GP general partner
HCA housing credit agency
HCDA Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
HERA Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 HOLA Home Owners Loan Act of 1933
HR House of Representatives
HTC historic tax credits
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development IRC Internal Revenue Code

until this moment RZA probably thought HUD was a movie

RZA (pronounced “risa” like “the son also risa” the hemmingway joint) is Robert Fitzgerald Diggs, 45, from Brownsville, where they probably have a fair amount of Section 42 housing. I question it here, and for the elderly. Diggs?

Will it take a “samurai showdown” between The Residentialists and the Pro Developer Establishment, to shed a little light on Stevenson House deal?

edit to add: I admit, I am kind of frontin’ regarding Hip Hop. I don’t actually know Hip Hop as I do speed metal or skronk, for instance. I have to crib on the internet to distinguish RZA from GZA or Ol’ Dirty Bastard; I am more like a Michael Franti kind of guy. Although at Gunn in the championship years, we were early adopters of Sugar Hill Gang, during warmups. Anyhow, it turns out that Robert Fitzgerald Diggs, RZA, spend formative years not in Brooklyn but Hill District of Pittsburgh, working his pop’s convenience store; maybe Hill District of Pittsburgh is a better place, compared to Stevenson House or South Palo Alto, for Low Income Housing Tax Credit investments. Here’s a little sumpin sumpin on that area:

In 1996, the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (HACP) was awarded a $26.6 million grant to redevelop the 460-unit HOPE VI complex called Bedford Dwellings. Working with the Hill CDC, the Bedford Resident Council and the City of Pittsburgh’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and HACP selected McCormack Baron Salazar, the developer of Crawford Square, to redevelop the Bedford site.

This development aimed to remove blight and to replace the dilapidated apartments with units designed as townhouses that blended in with the existing architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Based on input from the residents’ desire to not be relocated more than once, the final redevelopment plan was implemented in phases.

Also in the late 90s came the redevelopment of the former Allequippa Terrace – a 1940s-era public housing complex. The first phase was completed in 2003 with 639 townhouses, about 70 percent of them low-income housing; a sub-phase was completed in 2010 which included 86 housing units.

The $90 million second phase will result in nearly 450 townhomes and apartments — the majority market-rate — office, retail and recreational spaces.

These Hope VI housing developments: Crawford Square, Bedford Hill and Oak Hill, have brought more economic diversity to the neighborhood. However, displacement of existing residents has been a major concern. The Greater Hill District Master plan outlines anti-displacement strategies to assure that current residents are able to enjoy the redevelopment of their neighborhood.

Bingo: Feel me this: anti displacement stragies (ADS?) Maybe we needs, at the very least, not just to “pull” the proposal, unlucky number 7 from tomorrow’s consent calendar, we need to add an ADS, an “anti-displacement strategy”. Yo. Word.

and1: or and3:
1) What is the history of LIHTC in Palo Alto?
2) What is the history, anywhere, of LIHTC for seniors?
3) What are comparable Stewart Company LIHTC, in San Francisco.
This looks like mere shark bait; we are using these 120 seniors to lure in these “savvy investors”.

Announcing: The RZAdentialists. We got game. We got teeth.

two hours later: I’ve got 20 other things to work on, and have posted twice since this, but circling back to the Stevenson case, I am re-reading the CMR and took these notes: 1) a for-profit entity managing a non profit seems to violate the PC ordinance, which specifies that Stevenson project is a non profit, period.
2) “an interpretation of the PC ordinance is required” see also our two hour discussion of the term “building envelope”
3) “which would continue”, the senior housing emphasis, with the changes, but for how long? typical LIHTC projects have sunsets, meaning that after 15 or 30 years it could revert to market rate.
4) CMR report references “a for profit entity that pays taxes must own the project” but here they are forming an entity to AVOID paying taxes. Seems contrived.
5) see also CMR 3176 — I have not seen, (dated 11/5/2012 see the link) but searching it sends me to:
6) CMR #4606 from April, 2014, i.e. recent relevant history, 4/7/14 regarding a TEFRA hearing that was posted in Weekly by advertisement in March, 2014. $23 M from CMFA California Municipal Finance Authority. If a public hearing was necessary for a bond issuance (which I am presuming failed? or what?) why is consent calendar sufficient here?
As cited in the published notice of March 21, 2014 in the Palo Alto Weekly, the public hearing is simply an opportunity for all interested persons to speak or to submit written comments concerning the proposal to issue the debt and the nature or location of the facility to be financed; however there is no formal obligation on the part of the borrower or the Council to respond to any specific comments made during the hearing or submitted in writing.
7) was there a TEFRA hearing? And why wasn’t that recent history referenced in this weeks staff report?
8) TEFRA is Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983
9) the current staff report, that is flawed and should not be approved without pulling, says that the house was built in 1968 “and now requires renovation”. More true is that, according to the staff report in 2012, the City of Palo Alto no fewer than nine times, between 1991 and 2012 has allocated funds totaling $1.2 for maintenance at Stevenson.