The KC CALL

What’s Next For Parade Park Homes? Who Knows

THE CALL reached out to Ms. Harris and she did not return our call.

By Eric L. Wesson Sr.

Managing Editor

THE CALL

Ironically almost six years ago to the date plaintiffs in the case against Parade Park Inc., Board of Directors filed their amended complaint against the co-operative’s Board of Directors on their individual capacity to the sum of $10 million.

At that time, Ms. Harrietta Harris, Ms. Barbara Lane, Ms. Janet Marzett and Don Williams sued Ms. Constance Smith Mahone, Ms. Bonnie Price, Dwight Miller, Ms. Tammy McDaniel, Ms. Cora Lewis and Ms. Carla Mack for alleged improper governance of the Cooperative causing the organization to lose a substantial amount of money through the years.

The three day trial revealed testimony from a Certified Public Account on the loss of revenue from uncollected rent payments on vacant units from 2009 to 2015, which included:

• 2009, losses of $411,000

• 2010, losses of $470,000

• 2011, losses of $547,000

• 2012, losses of $645,000

• 2013, losses of $834,000

• 2014, losses of $917,000

• 2015, losses of $1.198 million.

Some tenants that were in the audience then stated that improvements did need to be made in the co-operative and that could be one reason why seniors are leaving and others are not moving into the units.

Some residents contend that the units need to be on one level because it is difficult to walk up steps to the bedrooms and bathroom for the elderly.

Fast forward to today and very little has changed outside of the fact that Ms. Harris is now President of Parade Park Homes. But the financial issues they are facing today stem back to mis-management that took place 2009 and current unresolved issues that are taking place today.

A number of frustrated members residing in (PPH) gathered on Monday, June 27, to vote in an effort to move things forward in having the complex re-developed.

Their efforts appeared to be contrary to what the Board wants to see happen to the complex and they did not authorize the meeting. In fact they had to hold their gathering outside because they were not granted access to the meeting room.

However, members pointed to the organization’s by-laws Article IV Meetings of Members Section 3. Special Meetings which reads in part: “It shall be the duty of the President to call a special meeting of the members as directed by resolution of the Board of Directors or upon a petition signed by twenty (20) percent of the members having been presented to the Secretary . . . . ”

They took that sub-section to mean that they could have a meeting under those standards.

The group exceeded the number of members required, 36, as members voted and signed a petition as to what they wanted to have happen to the complex based upon hearing a presentation from Emmet Pierson Jr. of Community Builders several days ago.

The Board determined that the “petition” and the 68-12 vote in favor of re-development with Community Builders was invalid, because a 10 day meeting notice was not issued. However, according to the by-laws the petition and vote were notice enough for the Secretary to call a special meeting as outlined in Section 4 Notice of Meetings.

However, allegedly, the Board president sent Mayor Lucas and the Council a letter stating the members had selected a different developer, which sources say was not true. They selected Community Builders.

There are several issues at stake in this entire matter.

First and foremost members of the oldest Black Cooperative in the country having a roof over their heads if a viable plan for re-development is not presented to HUD in the next several weeks.

However, some members of PPH are confused because some of the information being shared by some of the newly elected Board members is inaccurate at best, according to sources that THE CALL have spoken with.

Apparently some members of the Board and members in general believe that the complex can be renovated, and that everything taking place is simply a ploy and conspiracy by the powers that be to come in and take over the land and build market rate housing.

However, those close to the matter contend they are wrong in their assumption and renovation is not an option at this point in time.

Certainly the units could be renovated, but at what costs and with what outcomes? Some would contend that putting $6 million into renovation would be a waste of money and do little if anything to attract families to the location versus re-developing the entire area making it more modern and conducive to today’s housing needs and definitely attracting more members.

By not picking a developer to come in and redevelop the area they are making it easier for HUD, who is the co-signer who guaranteed the loan for renovations several years, to step in and place the properties into receivership to be sold.

Some Board members and members of PPH contend that the properties cannot be “foreclosed” on as long as the loan payment is current.

However, THE CALL has not seen the Deed of Trust on the property and is unaware of any clauses that may be in that trust, but we can safely say there usually are several clauses for compliance that could create the option for a default and send the property to receivership.

A recent re-act inspection resulted in the complex receiving a score of 14 points out of a possible 70 points to be in compliance. It is believed that these points are much lower than the two previous years inspection totals.

The complex is due for a re-inspection on July 7 and the results are not viewed to be any better.

The issues facing PPH include mold, leaking roofs, electrical outlets that don’t work that could start a fire, bad plumbing and the fact that half of the units are vacant and about are, allegedly, 81 families are behind in their rent, according to CALL sources. That means that only 181 units out of 510 are functioning within PPH standards.

Putting $4 to $6 million into ultimately a remodeling program is not what some members want.

According to Senator Barbara Ann Washington, the matching funds they receive from the state is for “Redevelopment, reconstruction & rehabilitation of a historically designated cooperatively-owned project .... provided that local match be provided in order to be eligible for state funds.”

“All I want them to do is what HUD says we have to do and stop playing and coming up with all of these folktales. They need to tell us the truth,” one PPH member told THE CALL.

“So if voting to get the Board moving is the next step in getting a plan rolling, then I’m all for it. Most of the people who live here are beyond being a senior and we want and need stability and to know that we aren’t going to be evicted over the next few weeks,” the member said.

“Who wants to come in from work or come in from the grocery store and see an eviction notice on their front door. We are in a very critical time,” the member said.

City Councilmember Melissa Robinson told THE CALL that PPH can stipulate in the development agreement at this stage what they want to happen.

“PPH is in a great position now. They can put the things that they want in the development agreement now. If they wait and HUD places it in receivership they will get nothing.”

“They can get an agreement where so many units have to low income and anything else that they want could be in the development agreement, especially since its so early in the process,” she said.

One of the things that can be asked for in the agreement is that after 25 years and the tax credits expire then ownership of the co-op can revert back to Parade Park Homes Inc.

News

en-us

2022-07-01T07:00:00.0000000Z

2022-07-01T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://kccallnews.pressreader.com/article/281505049912264

Kansas City CALL Newspaper Inc