The Mount Auburn Good Housing Foundation (MAGHF), established in 1968 as Cincinnati's first community development corporation, is ramping up its efforts to improve its neighborhood's housing stock.
City administration is recommending that they City enter into a preferred development agreement with MAGHF for a parcel of City-owned property at .
The parcel, vacant since a building on the site was demolished in late 1999, is seen as key to the development of between 10 and 20 affordable housing units, an undetermined amount of retail, and new offices for MAGHF.
Freeman McNeal, director of development for MAGHF, has been working with the City's Department of Community Development since last August to gain control of the City-owned property, valued at approximately $15,300. MAGHF has offered $1 for the parcel.
But to acquire the property, MAGHF would be required to submit a full budget and development plan.
MAGHF has claimed that creating that plan would cause a hardship for the non-profit. And several lending institutions, including Cincinnati Development Fund, have told MAGHF that discussing financing – including financing that could help develop a plan – without site control would be premature.
According to McNeal, MAGHF would be able to complete a development plan and begin work on acquiring additional parcels if named as preferred developer.
An ordinance designating MAGHF as preferred developer is not yet on City Council's agenda.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Mount Auburn CDC seeks preferred developer status for vacant property
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Recent Comments
2 comments:
A for profit company also wants to buy this property. Many believe for they want it as a future [casino] spec play.
You can be sure if housing stock goes in there it will be nothing like the house(s) that was/were there. It should be left green space for the sake of the houses/neighborhood behind it. Busy Reading Road is already too tight right there. Fix up what exists.
Regarding the "additional parcels", what gives the city the right to tear down properties that could have been sold and fixed up. The houses that were there were not offered for sale. The city tore them down. What gives the city the right now to clam the land and sell it? Why didn't they claim the houses and sell them? Because they didn't own them? (they didn't) How can they own the land now?
Post a Comment