Time for a new scandal
That long-vacant land was to go to Kensington South, which planned to build 14 market-rate and 10 affordable homes with the help of $1.24 million in federal housing funds.Keeping up the theme of folks who just don't get it (either reality or appearance of inpropriety), Clarke declares that there's no problem here.
The land is owned by 413 Hope Mission Ministries, another non-profit, which has a rival plan to build 40 market-rate homes with no government assistance.
Clarke asserts that he has a right to buy a home from whomever he wishes, that this purchase had nothing to do with his official duties and that he scrupulously made sure there was no public subsidy involved.He got the City Solicitor to look at the matter and agree that there was no problem. Of course, he barely spoke to the current owners of the property that he had condemned. And it's hard not to see the custom-refurbished house as a convenient gift, when you see discussion like this:
Clarke said the price he paid was market rate, but Scott Krisanda, Kensington South's executive director, said the non-profit probably lost money on the transaction when all its soft costs are added up.I agree that Kensington's proposal, because it includes an affordable-housing component, could be preferable to that of Hope Mission, but the fact is that the latter already owns the property and wishes to develop it -- this hardly seems like a proper use of eminent domain, even without the uncomfortable closeness.
[Previous mentions of Clarke on ASFR, related to various bills and suggestions: 1, 2, 3, 4]