The $440,000 designated for housing has so far translated into an investment of nearly $620,000 in Shingle Creek housing improvements. This has been a highly successful program, offering home improvements to 115 residents over the past six years, plus an additional 6 loans that used no NRP funds but leveraged other sources. A ratio of from 8:1 to 10:1 in leveraged funds not only made more funds available to residents, but also helped to serve more residents with fewer dollars. A little more than $227,000 (May2002) remains to continue the program well into the future.
These loans have helped to improve and stabilize what was and remains a solid residential neighborhood in northwest Minneapolis. Residents of all income levels were eligible, giving all taxpayers in the community an opportunity for funding. Low-income residents were able to invest in deferred maintenance projects that have contributed to increased property values.
The neighborhood made a conscious effort to offer loans rather than grants so that the program would be self-perpetuating, and that has proved to be a wise decision. Regardless of Phase II funding, Shingle Creek will be able to offer home improvement loans beyond the original Phase I funding.
It is suggested that a more aggressive marketing effort be mounted to get the remaining the funds into the neighborhood.
The demolition fund was established in 1999 by reallocating $15,000 from a strategy to purchase and develop “cottage” homes. The fund was established to comply with city policy that neighborhoods would pick up one-half of the cost of demolition of condemned properties.
As of December 2001, the fund has not been used. Although there have been acquisitions and demolitions in the neighborhood, they have been part of the Humboldt Greenway project and were funded through Hennepin Community Works and the MCDA. The fund will remain intact for the time being as a contingency fund to allow the Inspections Department to remove a blighted structure, should it become necessary in the future.
During the planning for the Action Plan, there was support for removing small “cottage” homes to allow for larger lots for existing homes. That program has not been implemented in any significant way, and with real estate values rising, it is not likely that much could be done with the $15,000 remaining in the fund. Most of these funds have been diverted to other strategies.