Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR
R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant
MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary
DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison
MEMORANDUM
Dan Sweat DATE: October 13, 1969
Clarence Greene
Model Cities, J, D. Newberry and Mrs. Annie B. Laird
As instructed we met with J. D. Newberry concerning repairs
to the residence of Mrs. Laird at 662 Mayland Avenue, S. W.
Subsequently we met with Littlefield and Lynch from the Model
Cities office, Lynch the inspector on this case.
Allegations made by Newberry and Mrs. Laird in some instances
were correct and some incorrect. The application signed by
Mrs. Laird for a loan of $3100, Above the $3000 grant was at
the rate of 3% - not 8 1/2%. Mrs. Laird's statement that only
one contractor came to her house is probably true. Her state-
ment is probably true she was told by the Housing Authority that
three bids were received and this particular contractor offered the
lowest bid. This will more or less being borne out from statements
made by Littlefield.
The following is procedure used by Model Cities' staff on the
rehabilitation of a property:
Contact property owner
Inspection - discussion with owner
Property owner invited to office for financial discussion
Application for grant and/or loan made
Contractor bids accepted and presented to owner
Contract let- repairs under supervision of the rehabilitation
staff.
Under #5, Littlefield stated he could on his own initiative place
a property for repair bids or he could assign one contractor only
to a particular property. We do not understand his power here
however, this is what he states.
Dan Sweat
aia October 13, 1969
From what we can ascertain the only form which is given a
property owner is a list of repairs necessary. A copy of this
document is attached and marked '1'', Property owners are
asked to sign numerous papers a copy of which is apparently
not offered to them. Most of negotiations are of an oral nature.
Attached are forms marked 2, 3, 4, and 5 which, if were given
to the property owners, would fully inform them as to the nature
of the grants, etc.
The following should not be publicizied because if generally known
would work against the Model Cities Program.
A property owner cannot be required, according to Littlefield to
accept grants or loans nor to rehabilitate their property to
Model Cities standards. If they did not conform to the standards
they could only be required to have their property conform to
the minimum City Housing Code requirements.
In the case of Mrs. Laird, according to one of the supervisors
in the Housing Code Division, her property could be brought
into compliance for an estimated expenditure of $1200. It can
readily be seen she would be in a far better financial situation,
even considering the higher interest rate she might pay for a
FHA home improvement loan, than she would be under a 3% 20
year $3100 loan,
CLG:bt
SUBJECT:
CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303
Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404
IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR
R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant
MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary
DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Director of Governmental Liaison
MEMORANDUM
Dan Sweat DATE: October 13, 1969
Clarence Greene
Model Cities, J, D. Newberry and Mrs. Annie B. Laird
As instructed we met with J. D. Newberry concerning repairs
to the residence of Mrs. Laird at 662 Mayland Avenue, S. W.
Subsequently we met with Littlefield and Lynch from the Model
Cities office, Lynch the inspector on this case.
Allegations made by Newberry and Mrs. Laird in some instances
were correct and some incorrect. The application signed by
Mrs. Laird for a loan of $3100, Above the $3000 grant was at
the rate of 3% - not 8 1/2%. Mrs. Laird's statement that only
one contractor came to her house is probably true. Her state-
ment is probably true she was told by the Housing Authority that
three bids were received and this particular contractor offered the
lowest bid. This will more or less being borne out from statements
made by Littlefield.
The following is procedure used by Model Cities' staff on the
rehabilitation of a property:
Contact property owner
Inspection - discussion with owner
Property owner invited to office for financial discussion
Application for grant and/or loan made
Contractor bids accepted and presented to owner
Contract let- repairs under supervision of the rehabilitation
staff.
Under #5, Littlefield stated he could on his own initiative place
a property for repair bids or he could assign one contractor only
to a particular property. We do not understand his power here
however, this is what he states.
Dan Sweat
aia October 13, 1969
From what we can ascertain the only form which is given a
property owner is a list of repairs necessary. A copy of this
document is attached and marked '1'', Property owners are
asked to sign numerous papers a copy of which is apparently
not offered to them. Most of negotiations are of an oral nature.
Attached are forms marked 2, 3, 4, and 5 which, if were given
to the property owners, would fully inform them as to the nature
of the grants, etc.
The following should not be publicizied because if generally known
would work against the Model Cities Program.
A property owner cannot be required, according to Littlefield to
accept grants or loans nor to rehabilitate their property to
Model Cities standards. If they did not conform to the standards
they could only be required to have their property conform to
the minimum City Housing Code requirements.
In the case of Mrs. Laird, according to one of the supervisors
in the Housing Code Division, her property could be brought
into compliance for an estimated expenditure of $1200. It can
readily be seen she would be in a far better financial situation,
even considering the higher interest rate she might pay for a
FHA home improvement loan, than she would be under a 3% 20
year $3100 loan,
CLG:bt