December 22nd, the StarTribune published an insightful opinion article, “Downtown 2025 plan must include job equity,” by Avi Viswanathan of Hire MN, responding in part to the Strib’s Dec. 14th Editorial, “By 2025, a bigger, livelier downtown Minneapolis.”
In his own article, Mr. Viswanathan writes, If we want a healthy economy… our approach to solving the problem of our disparities cannot be separated from any of our long-term strategies and grand visions, much less from our plans for large public and private investments. We must have a systemic and integrated approach so that equity becomes a necessary component of each and every plan for how our city and region develop.
I would like to piggy-back on these comments by raising further concern over the lack of housing affordable to people with low, very, and extremely low incomes. Solving homelessness must also be part of a long-term strategy and grand vision, rather than a side note, intended to get some more people off the streets for a night or two. “By 2025…” credits the city with its idea to provide …permanent shelter and support services for the 300 to 500 people who will sleep outside in downtown Minneapolis tonight and most nights this winter. And that the project, …anticipates both significant corporate donations to pay for projects and funding help from all levels of government. Both will be required to accomplish this plan’s goals.
That said, I would like to now shift gears and turn some attention to a federal program called Section 3.
Have you heard of Section 3? Me neither. I never knew about this program until someone recently asked me about it. I had to look it up. NLIHC offers a great (and more complete and accurate) description of it in their Spring issue of Tenant Talk and in their 2011 Advocates’ Guide. Section 3 was designed as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 to provide work opportunities for public housing residents, businesses owned by public housing residents, HUD Youthbuild participants, residents of the neighborhood or businesses that provide economic opportunities to individuals in the neighborhood, and homeless individuals.
What, you may ask, does this have to do with Minneapolis’s grand vision for its future, and the need for racial and economic equality to be addressed within the plan?
In short (kinda), Section 3 determines that with any number of particular HUD grants used for public and Indian housing or for certain development projects (like this one, perhaps), the grant recipient is supposed to give preference for 30% of its new hires (related to the development project), to eligible individuals that are low-income, homeless, live in the neighborhood, etc. Therefore, if this project were to come to life, and becomes even partly funded by HUD grants, the city and contractors must be held accountable to hiring some of the folks experiencing homelessness and individuals with low-incomes who are already living in the neighborhood to assist with the project.
Developing sustainable communities that connect jobs and transit with more affordable housing options for low-income residents and creating job opportunities for those who need greater housing stability would be an excellent companion piece to advancing racial equity within the plan. Not only that, but enforcing Section 3 would help to create a financial return for HUD and local housing authorities, as residents would be increasing their own contributions in rent. That would be a much better way for the government to save than by cutting HUD programs at a time when people need jobs and housing.
According to the NLIHC, enforcement of Section 3 has been neglected until the Obama Administration began taking steps to hold grant recipients accountable to report on their hiring practices.
If advocates are vigilant in holding local governments and contractors accountable to complying with Section 3 on HUD funded projects, much of the same effort can be simultaneously and equally applied when ensuring that people of color are given a fair shot at those work opportunities as well. What’s that saying again? “We all do better when we all do better?”
