Blog Post < Previous | Next >
CVP
MHA Director Lewis Jordan responds to comments by Susan Kirsch
The following letter by Marin Housing Authority Director, Lewis Jordan, is in response to the comments by Susan Kirsch, previously published in the Marin Post.
Ms. Kirsch,
We appreciate you taking the time to write to us regarding your concerns about last week's Community Listening Session. We are sorry to hear that you felt the meeting fell short of its intended goal and are certainly concerned by your perception of it being a "manipulative process." To be sure we are answering the questions you raise, we are responding to each of your points below:
1. Of all the choices, why did Marin Housing Authority hire CVR, a Florida-based company that manages $2+ billion dollars in mixed-finance transactions and promotes its business with the slogan of finding "solutions for the Affordable Housing Industry?" The community is aware of the big money in the housing industry, and it is troubling to see such an obvious bias in the choice of an agency to facilitate the process. Shall we invite the foxes to design the hen house?
Response: As you know, the Marin Housing Authority ("MHA'') conducted a competitive solicitation through a Request for Proposal ("RFP") for a consultant to conduct a feasibility analysis. MHA released this RFP in November of 2016 and received five responses from qualified firms. The Golden Gate Village Taskforce ("Taskforce") made up of local business and community leaders, as well as Golden Gate Village and other Marin City residents, including Resident Council members, provided a shortlist recommendation to MHA on which firms to interview. Three firms were chosen to be interviewed and the Taskforce evaluated each of the three firm's qualifications. All three firms made thorough presentations addressing the critical elements of the RFP and scope of work. In the end, the Taskforce recommended, and MHA concurred that CVR Associates was the most qualified firm to take on this scope or work. The Taskforce felt that CVR Associates provided the most compelling combination of public housing revitalization experience, understanding of historic preservation issues, and had a community oriented approach.
2. The promo for the meeting promised an analysis of two models MHA is considering. Why weren't the models presented?
Response: We have attached the flyers that were advertised for residents and the broader community. We are not aware of an advertisement or posting that promised any analysis at the June 5th meeting. In fact, the flyers and door hangers alluded to a three part series of meetings. However, a brief summary of the two options, 1) Historic Preservation, and 2) Mixed Income were discussed at the start of the meeting as being identified through the previous community engagement process managed by RDJ Enterprises and the point at which CVR Associates would begin the analysis process. Analysis of options assessed by the feasibility consultant team will be presented as the process moves forward.
3. CVR distributed several legal-sized sheets of paper with lists of words about economic, physical, and social concerns residents have identified in the past. Community Working Groups have been meeting since 2009, maybe longer. Why wasn't the previous input compiled and summarized, analyzed, and weighed against criteria? Why did CVR waste time collecting still more data without a framework for making sense of the current data?
Response: The Listening Session at our first meeting was intended to serve as a bridge between the prior processes and the feasibility consultant's analysis and broader process. The team utilized documentation from the Community Working Group ("CWG") sessions that took place in 2015 to build this bridge. Data from the 2015 sessions was collected and was analyzed using what the feasibility consultant team calls their "E.S.P. Framework," which organized the documented meeting minutes from the 2015 CWG sessions into Economic, Social, and Physical categories. Analyzing the CWG sessions in this way showed the most prevalent themes of those discussions but let the community identify what things are most important to them. This data was collected at this meeting, which we believe to be insightful and useful to the overall process.
4. Why did CVR separate the stakeholder groups into different meetings on different days? Residents and community members met Monday night. Tuesday other meetings were held with nonprofit leaders, sheriff staff, planning and government staff. How does this fit a standard for "inclusive?" Going forward, what are the CVR strategies to build trust and transparency?
Response: In our consultant's experience, at the beginning of processes like this, smaller groups often yield more participation from attendees. The smaller groups allowed our team to have pointed discussions, which allowed stakeholders to share concerns that were specific to their agency or organization's mission or vested interests in the Golden Gate Village site. In our second set of meetings and third meeting we will also be inviting all stakeholders to attend.
5. Why didn't CVR address the topic of "cost effective strategy to revitalize Golden Gate Village," as was promised in the announcement of the event?
Response: Please see response to Point 2. The intention was for the feasibility consultant team to begin this process by hosting a community Listening Session and understand the community's concerns and vision. Further analysis and findings will be shared at later meetings. No MHA-issued flyers promised the presentation of a cost-effective strategy at the initial June 5th meeting. Analysis related to "cost effectiveness" and ultimately feasibility will be presented in August.
6. Besides checking off a box to document that CVR conducted a public meeting with community participation, what was the point? Or is that your point? What do you identify as the outcomes of the Monday night meeting? Where does the meeting fit on a continuum of plans?
Response: One of our main goals throughout this process is resident and community engagement. As stated previously, our aim for the first meeting was to respect the prior CWG process and to create a bridge between the work that had been done to date and the work of our feasibility consultants. Based on the feedback we received, we were successful in accomplishing this, particularly since we saw many stakeholders and residents and heard many important issues raised. We even saw many new faces in the crowd and our consultants were successful in soliciting responses from familiar and unfamiliar voices. As our consultants presented, this first session was the beginning of a series of three community meetings. The second set of sessions is scheduled for the middle of July. These sessions will be workshops surrounding financial and physical considerations and analysis. The final meeting is tentatively scheduled for the end of August.
We would like to thank you again for sharing your concerns regarding our initial Listening Session. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me directly at 415-491-2530. We continue to look forward to the outcomes of this open and innovative process. It is our sincerest hope that you will continue to attend and participate in such process.
Sincerely,
Lewis Jordan
Executive Director, Housing Authority of the County of Marin
Enclosures
Cc:
Fradique Rocha, Co-Chief Executive Officer, CVR Associates Inc.
Kate Sears, Supervisor, District #3
Royce Mclemore, President, Golden Gate Village Resident Council
David Levin, Executive Director, Legal Aid of Marin
Caroline Peattie, Executive Director, Fair Housing of Marin
Ricardo Moncrief, ISOJI
Bob Silvestri, Community Venture Partners
Dick Spotswood, Marin Independent Journal
Brad Breithaupt, Marin Independent Journal