►
From YouTube: 1-10-22 City Council work session
Description
Des Moines City Council morning work session on Monday, January 10, 2022.
Learn more: https://DSM.city/councilmeetings
A
B
C
C
The
requirements
would
shift
the
cost
of
monitoring
vacant
properties
from
the
city
to
the
owned
property
owners.
Currently
we
have
inspectors
going
out
every
30
to
60
days
to
keep
an
eye
on
vacant
properties
in
the
city
of
des
moines
to
make
sure
that
they're
secured.
This
would
move
that
responsibility
to
the
owner
or
management
agent.
D
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
So
what
are
the
liabilities
of
vacant
properties
when
they're
not
properly
monitored
and
maintained
they're
vacant
and
abandoned
they
become
associated
with
increased
levels
of
crime
vacant
and
abandoned
properties,
present
an
increased
risk
to
health
and
welfare
of
residents
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood?
They
significantly
lower
surrounding
property
values.
C
C
C
C
Security
requirements
of
vacant
abandoned
properties,
monitoring
and
visiting
the
property
at
a
minimum
monthly.
Keeping
a
detailed
log
of
each
visit
provide
written
notes
to
the
city
of
the
properties
in
violation
and
the
proper,
then
that
proper
steps
are
being
taken
to
come
into
compliance
comply
with
the
ordinance
requirements
within
30
days.
They
can
request
an
extension
if
it's
necessary
due
to
weather,
we
would
have
the
right
to
add
additional
security
measures
if
we
deemed
that
it
was
necessary,
the
owners
could
we'd
have
an
appeal
process,
so
they
could
appeal
that.
C
C
C
C
C
Well,
they
would
also
have
to
come
into
this
process
if
it's
a
public
nuisance,
which
we
hope
would
make
them,
take
better
control
of
those
public
nuisances.
A
lot
of
those,
though,
are
truly
the
worst
case.
Scenarios
have
abandoned
where
the
property
owner
has
no
assets
and
has
simply
walked
away.
So
in
that
case,
we
might
not
get
as
much
monitoring
and
those
dues
would
stay
on
our
vacant
monitor
list
for
constant.
You
know
watching
them.
G
C
E
C
The
goal
is
correct:
to
get
it
into
the
system
and
on
our
radar
earlier
and
have
that
owner
be
responsible,
because
if
we
just
go
out
and
board
it
up
and
then
we
walk
away
because
it's
not
a
nuisance,
it
remains
boarded
up.
So
this
would
say:
okay,
we
boarded
it
now.
You
got
to
put
glass
back
in
that
window
and
you
have
to
monitor
that
property
and
keep
it
from
continually
getting
broken
into
when.
H
C
I
I
think
in
other
jurisdictions,
people
the
municipalities
have
found
that
this
is
a
worthwhile
endeavor
to
keep
eyes
on
the
property
from
the
owner.
Instead
of
having
them
be
able
to
walk
away,
and
if
they're
in
another
city,
they
have
to
have
somebody
local.
So
they
have
to
have
an
investment
in
the
property.
C
H
C
Because
if
they
can
live
in
chicago
and
they
own
a
piece
of
property,
they
bought
on
tax
sale
here
they
have
no
desire
to
have
anything
to
do
with
it,
because
all
they're
doing
is
doing
it
as
a
write-off
and
we
make
them
now.
Pay
attention
hire
a
local
management
agent.
Maybe
it
doesn't
look
so
good
on
their
books.
Maybe
they'll
try
and
move
it
to
somebody
else.
H
Okay,
I
guess,
then
my
concerns
are
just
our
association
with
crime.
With
these
properties,
I
don't
think
is
really
realistic
in
what
the
actual
association
is.
I
feel
like
we
are
it's
a
two-way
street,
essentially,
when
you
have
lots
of
areas
with
boarded
up
and
abandoned
properties,
when
you
have
essentially
broken
windows
type
areas,
crime
is
not
because
of
a
vacant
or
abandoned
property.
It's
because
of
the
conditions
that
led
to
abandon
houses
in
the
first
place.
C
Well,
I
I
don't
know
that
we
can
legislate
what
people
do
with
their
properties.
That
would
be
a
legal
department.
Question
number
one
number
two:
there
are
other
programs
in
other
cities
that
are
called
land
banking
efforts.
We
have
talked
about
that,
but
not
in
great
detail.
That
would
be
maybe
more
toward
a
program
that
would
be
getting
toward
what
what
you're
looking
for
is
a
land.
H
C
H
Yeah,
I
agree.
I
just
see
a
registration
process
as
being
more
of
just
like
a
registration
process
that
we
know,
because
I
agree,
I
don't
know
that
it's
going
to
take
any
burden
off
the
city.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
another
program
and
we're
going
to
be
doing
what
we're
doing
anyway
and
so
having
a
registration
process
so
that
we
know
where
the
vacant
homes
are
so
that
we
can
decide
what
to
do
about
them
later,
I
think,
would
be
beneficial.
D
Feel,
like
my
question,
was
answered
in
terms
of
what
this
does.
I,
I
would
appreciate,
maybe
a
couple
of
the
bottles
that
you
reference
from
other
communities,
but
but
I
see
a
value
I
mean,
I
think
this
says
at
least
a
good
chunk
of
what
you
were
talking
about
in
terms
of
we
don't
want
someone
holding
on
to
a
property
in
our
community
as
an
investment
as
a
tax
write-off
and
not
doing
anything.
D
C
And
I
agree
with
that.
This
is
not
the
end.
All
be
all
this
isn't
going
to
solve
all
the
problems,
but
number
one.
We
need
to
know
where
the
problems
are
and
who
the
problem
is.
So
if
we
have
a
vacant
property
registration,
we
can
start
building
a
database
to
inform
us.
Is
there
a
person
or
an
entity?
Is
there
an
area
of
town
are
the
nodes
and
corridors
that
we
can
put
some
economic
development
in?
We
just
don't
have
that
information
right
now.
This
would
get
us
at
least
some
data.
B
C
C
C
H
Guess
my
issue
is,
with
the
essentially
the
property
being
kept
in
the
hands
of
an
owner
management
company
that
is
not
of
the
neighborhood.
I
can
see
how
just
upkeep
is-
and
you
know
generally
having
somebody
going
in
and
out
of
the
property
is
desirable.
I
don't
like
the
piece
there
was
a
piece
talking
about
city
staff
has
the
right
to
require
additional
security
measures.
What
purpose
would
that
serve.
C
Well,
if
something's
getting
broken
into
and
fires
were
getting
started,
would
we
want
it
fenced
off
for
better
control?
Would
we
want
some?
You
know
if
there's
a
hole
in
a
parking
lot,
for
instance,
which
we've
had
happen?
Do
we
want
to
fence
that
parking
lot
off
so
that
the
car
doesn't
get
damaged
until
we
can
get
the
repairs
made
there
they're.
H
Okay,
then,
I
got
my
like
having
additional
security
measures.
Just
I
would,
rather,
you
know
just
invest
in
the
property
versus
letting
them
hold
on
to
it
for
longer
and
requiring
security
measures
that
are
just
gonna
like
bring
you
know,
it's
not.
It
doesn't
bring
up
the
morale
of
the
neighborhood
to
do
something
like
that.
C
I
totally
understand
what
you're
saying
it's:
it's
a
much
larger
and
much
more
expensive
solution.
I'm
not
saying
that
we
shouldn't
explore
it.
There
are
other
communities
that
have
land
banking
efforts,
but
we
have
to
figure
out
how
that
looks
I
mean:
are
we
going
to
set
up
a
non-profit
to
hold
the
title
to
the
property?
Is
the
city
going
to
hold
title
to
the
property?
What
are
the
methods
that
we
can
get
title
to
the
property
to
hold
it
in
a
land
bank?
There's
certain
state
codes
that
we
have
to
follow.
H
What
I'm
saying
is
that
at
this
point
I
would
I
am
not
opposed
to
like
a
registration
process.
I'm
just
opposed
to
the
additional
security
measures
I'm
opposed
to,
like
the
I
don't
know,
essentially
keeping
it
in
the
hands
out
of
the
neighborhood,
because
when
we're
talking
about
neighborhoods
that
have
a
lot
of
vacant
properties,
it's
going
to
be
like
areas
that
also
have
low
home
ownership
versus
rental
numbers.
H
And
I
just
want
to
see
the
intention
of
this,
like
we
listed
the
intention
as
encouraging
greater
investment,
which
is
literally
just
serving
to
grow
the
wealth
of
developers
over
the
actual
community
members,
and
so
that's
my
concern
is
that
our
intention
is
not
in
line
with
supporting
the
community
bringing
wealth
back
into
the
community
uplifting.
The
people
who
already
live
there.
F
C
F
But
I
have
emails
going
back
to
june.
The
graffiti
is
still
there
and
I
realize
it's
a
different
department.
The
latest
email
was
january,
7th
where
somebody
says
well
it's
winter
and
we
really
can't
do
graffiti
removal
in
in
the
in
january.
Well,
this
goes
back
to
june
and
it's
still
taken
care
of.
I
don't
think
anybody.
F
F
C
C
You
have
to
upkeep
the
exterior
of
the
building
to
keep
it
from
deteriorating
inside
until
it
gets
so
far
gone
that
we
can't
save
it.
That's
when
it's
a
public
nuisance
that
can
take
years,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
a
buttoned
up
now
get
real
glass
in
it.
Get
real
doors,
get
the
graffiti
get
somebody
who
is
monitoring
it.
F
F
F
C
F
C
F
C
Every
time
we
go
out
on
a
complaint,
so
here
here's
with
the
fees.
We
know
that
we
are
not
charging
for
our
rental
inspection
program.
What
the
fees
could
be
we're
way
under
charging.
We,
we
have
been
told-
and
it's
correct
by
legal-
that
we
can't
make
money
on
these.
I
get
that
so
we're
taking
the
best
information
we
have
in
the
fee
schedule
and
trying
to
mirror
it
so
that
we're
not
accused
of
going
over
and
above
in
our
fees.
E
C
C
G
I
G
G
I
think
most
of
us
on
the
council
would
would
be
supportive
of
it,
because
I
mean
we're
here
to
work
for
the
neighborhoods
and
we
we've
all
said
that
neighborhood
improvements
is
our
number
one
priority,
so
I
would,
I
would
be
supportive
of
it
and
to
see
how
it
works
and
and
then
we
can
look
at
land.
Banking.
G
We've
talked
about
land
banking
for
eight
years
that
I've
been
on
the
council,
and
you
know
nothing
nothing's
ever
happened,
but
we've
got
to
get
data
to
see
how
many
vacant
and
abandoned
properties-
and
I
don't
think
we
have
a
good
idea
at
all
right
now,
what's
out
there
in
our
city
and
that's
that's
shameful
and
we
need
to
get.
We
need
to
get
a
grip
on
it
figure
out
what's
going
on,
and
I
think
this
will
help.
H
I
I
H
H
I
had
a
question
about
the
wording
because
there
are
certain
times
when
a
building
is
subject
to
foreclosure
but
hasn't
been
foreclosed
yet,
and
people
are
still
living
in
the
property,
and
I
didn't
want
that
to
yeah.
I
think
it's
not
vacant
at
that
point.
Okay,
so
it's
only
once
it
becomes
vacant.
Yes,
okay.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
clear
in
the
language
so
that
can't
be
abused.
C
A
lot
of
times
what
happens,
unfortunately,
is
people
who
get
a
notice
of
foreclosure,
get
scared
and
they
move,
and
then
it
goes
vacant
and
they
can
they.
They
could
actually
stay
there
until
the
court
orders
them
to
move,
but
they
don't.
And
then
the
mortgage
company
doesn't
do
anything,
and
so
then
it
becomes
a
liability
for
the
for
the
neighbors.
D
C
H
H
C
H
I
C
C
So
if
you
didn't
have
a
second
mean
of
means
of
egress
on
a
second
or
third
floor
unit,
but
your
neighbor
did,
you
could
get
out
of
your
apartment,
walk
across
the
hall
break
a
panel
in
the
door
reach
in
and
then
go
out
through
their
unit.
That
was
your
second
means
of
egress
a
lot
of
times
what
we
were
finding
on
inspections
is
people
were
putting
metal
over
the
knockout
panels.
C
They
were
putting
large
pieces
of
furniture
over
the
doors
because
they
didn't
want
people
getting
in
and
out
of
their
apartments.
So
for
security
reasons,
and
for
safety
reasons
and
working
with
the
building
department,
we
determined
that
knockout
panels
needed
to
be
eliminated.
It's
not
safe,
it's
not
a
guaranteed
means
of
egress.
C
H
F
I'm
I'm
fully
supportive
of
that,
but
I
thought
from
what
I
read
in
the
presentation.
Are
you
saying
that
if
I,
if,
if
I
own
a
house
and
one
of
my
kids
lives
in
that
house
right
now,
I
don't
have
to
have
a
rental
certificate
for
that.
Are
you
saying
that
we're
not
going
to
move
forward
with
having
single
family
homes
that
are
not
on
the
same
property?
F
H
Sorry,
I
I
mean
maybe
this
gets
explained
in
in
future
slides,
but
in
the
last
slide
like
I
didn't
really
understand
the
the
two
bullet
points
that
were
at
the
bottom.
There
is
not
going
to
get
explained
more
in
future
slides
because
I
didn't
think
I
understood
it
when
I
went
through
the
presentation
earlier
see.
If
I
can
go
back,
does
it
let
you
yeah
so
where
the
exemption
has
a
place
in
the
code?
I
don't
understand
where
you're
proposing
that
it
stay.
H
C
H
But
I
also
think
that
limiting
it
to
you
know
that
single-line
relation
is
pretty
white,
family
structure
focus
and
that's
not
how
a
lot
of
people
actually
live.
A
lot
of
people
do
live
with
cousins,
uncles,
aunts,
things
like
that
in
their
immediate
family,
and
it's
just
a
different
conception
of
what
an
immediate
family
is.
So
I
would
like
to
see
that
expanded
actually,
but
I
also
would
like
to
understand
the
exterior
maintenance
piece.
C
C
So
when
we
do
our
property
study,
our
city-wide
study
we'll
know
if
this
is
a
nuclear
family
exempted
and
what
the
exterior
maintenance
of
that
property
looks
like,
and
maybe
it'll
inform
us
that
we
believe
those
need
a
rental
license
for
the
safety
of
the
occupants.
But
I'm
not
willing
to
say
that
without
doing
some
research
and.
F
So
I
get
that,
but
I
think
my
concern
always
was
that
person
who
owns
multiple
houses-
and
he
says-
oh
well,
my
son
lives
here
and
there's
no
maintenance
on
it.
They,
you
know
it's
in
horrible
condition,
but
because
it's
considered
a
family
unit,
they
don't
they
don't
have
to
maintain
it.
They
don't
have
to
have
a
rental
code
and
that's
not
good
for
our
neighborhoods.
C
F
H
H
C
Well,
invest
dsm
did
theirs
five
years
ago,
yep
so
now
they're
coming
forward,
saying
we
want
to
do
that
same
report
type
citywide,
we'll
get
an
idea
of
up
down
what's
moving
and
then
they're
going
to
pick
their
new
districts.
At
the
same
time,
we
have
our
code
enforcement
piece,
which
is
the
property
improvement.
C
H
I
C
C
Most
houses
have
a
furnace,
not
a
dealer,
pardon
not
a
boiler,
not
a
boiler.
Okay,
although
there
are
some
single
families
with
boilers,
but
most
of
them
have
just
a
furnace,
and
it
draws
air
from
the
whole
house
through
the
ductwork
runs
it
across
the
heat
exchange
to
heat
it
and
blows
it
back
out
somewhere
else.
So
all
of
that
air
is
constantly
being
circulated
and
shared
within
the
unit.
It's
not
pulling
air
somewhere
else.
It's
it's
all
circulating
within
the
system.
C
Neat,
the
radiators
heat
and
that's
where
you
get
your
water
heat,
okay,
so
it
in
the
history
of
des
moines
and
other
cities.
You
know
people
would
take
older
houses
that
are
too
large
to
be
economically
or
they
needed
housing.
You
know
so
they
split
them
up,
and
so
they
would
use
the
one
furnace
and
they
would
just
split
the
ductwork
off
right.
C
C
H
C
F
H
C
Numerous
indoor
air
pollutants,
dust
mites,
mold,
cut
down
or
environmental
tobacco
smoke,
cockroaches
allergens
fleas.
You
know
whatever
is
going
to
jump
between
units,
so
those
that
have
asthmatic
conditions
are
going
to
be
more
affected
by
shared
air
in
these
houses.
So
that's
sort
of
the
health
risk
that
we're
trying
to
eliminate.
C
Fire
safety-
this
is
a
big
one.
I
hate
to
use
tragedy
when
I
talk
about
these
things,
but
there
was
the
fire
and
bronx
and,
and
there
are
people
who
passed
away-
and
god
helped
me
I'm
sad.
But
when
you
talk
about
fire
fire
safety,
you
have
shared
ducts
that
go
through
walls,
and
so
you
have
smoke
going
through.
The
ducts
you
have
and
smoke
is
a
heated
fuel
source.
So
if
it
goes
through
a
duct
and
dumps
out,
it
can
start
a
flash
fire
in
the
next
unit.
C
Toxic
mixture
contains
poisonous
gases.
If
you
eliminate
those
shared
air
vents
that
go
through
the
walls,
you
cut
down
on
your
fire
issues
and
when
somebody
has
to
separate
these
shared
air
units
and
put
in
single
units,
they
also
have
to
cut
those
duct
off
and
and
cr
and
stop
the
shared
air.
So
it
becomes
a
contained
unit.
C
C
C
So
if
they
came
in
for
a
permit
to
replace
that
one
unit,
they
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
repair
it
so
theoretically,
over
time
you
know,
replacements
would
happen,
but
our
concern
is
that
older
units
are
being
patched
indefinitely
and
perpetuating
the
fire
safety.
Air
quality
energy
efficiency
concerns.
So
we
think
we
just
need
to.
You
know,
stop
that
and
and
get
in
there
and
make
them
separate
them.
C
If
the
unit
fails
and
we
go
and
say,
okay,
your
unit
failed,
you
need
to
pull
a
permit
to
replace
it.
They
go
down
to
the
permit
and
development
center
and
they
say
you
have
to
have
four
units.
If
it's
a
four
flex,
you
have
to
separate
it
out
we're
not
going
to
permit
a
new
furnace
for
a
single
furnace
in
a
multi
unit.
H
C
Yep,
so
if
you
talk
about
international
maintenance
code,
we
adopted
the
uniform
mechanical
code
in
1972.
It
would
at
that
point
did
not
allow
return
air
from
being
discharged
into
another
dwelling
unit.
We
are
now
under
the
2021
international
mechanical
code,
and
it's
not
allowed
under
that
again.
Remember
that
the
air
is
taken
from
all
units
past
passed
in
through
the
furnace
and
then
redirected
back
into
all
the
units.
It's
all
commingled
shared
and
dumped
back
into
the
units.
C
So
this
kind
of
came
to
a
head
when
we
had
a
rental,
I
think
I
think
she
had
a
fourplex
and
she
went
ahead
and
put
in
replaced
an
old
unit
with
a
new
four
stair
unit
didn't
pull
permits
and
we
caught
it
on
the
rental
inspection
and
we
said
no,
you
didn't
pull
a
permit
and
you're
gonna
have
to
separate
out
and
put
in
four
units.
She
appealed
it
to
the
building
and
fire
appeals
board.
Who
said,
no,
you
have
to
separate.
C
C
C
F
F
E
H
That
was
funny.
Sorry,
I
was
gonna
say
I.
This
is
obviously
a
serious
safety
risk,
so
we
need
to
move
forward
with
it.
I
do
want
I'm
wondering
the
impact
if
this
could
have
an
impact
of
moving
like
a
decreasing
density,
essentially
like
if
you
have
a
home,
that's
split
into
four
units.
Is
someone
gonna
get
this
in
the
rental
inspection
and
just
be
like?
Forget
it?
I'm
just
gonna
sell
the
house
for
someone
to
you
know
scale
it
back
to
a
single
family,
so
I
don't
have
to
do
that.
H
I
H
All
I
don't
want
to
trade
it
at
all,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of,
because
we
need
to
do
this.
How
can
we
ensure,
or
is
there
a
method
that
we
can
make
sure
we're
not
losing
units?
While
people
are
doing
this,
because
this
needs
to
happen,
we
can
look
at
it
yeah.
It's
not
like
it's
just
something
to
think
about.
I
guess.
C
H
H
Cause,
I
know,
what's
happening
in
drake
right
now,
like
a
lot
of
like
big
houses,
got
split
into
rental
units
and
now
they're
being
like,
you
know,
put
back
into
like
a
big
single-family
home
and
I
feel
like
this
is
going
to
accelerate
that,
even
though
it's
extremely
necessary,
we
do
this,
I'm
not
going
to
suggest
that
all
that
we
don't
I'm
just
thinking
about
okay.
So
what
are
the
consequences
of
this
action?
And
how
can
we
mitigate
that
so.
C
E
I
think
it's
the
continual
development
of
more
units.
I
mean
that's
what
the
you
know.
You
look
in
the
drake
here,
there's
a
lot
of
new
units
coming
on.
I
appreciate
that
the
old
houses,
but
there
was
an
old
house
that
we
had
that
wasn't
safe,
yeah,
yeah
yeah,
it's
going
to
be
single
family,
but
what
was
it
being
there?
What
was
there
before
was
unsafe?
It's
a
bigger.
H
B
But
to
your
point
we
could
we
can
we
can
track.
You
know,
I
think
it
would
be,
would
be
valuable
to
you
know
so
that
you
don't
have
unintended
consequences
of
really
any
program
that
we
initiate
and
then,
if
you
do,
find
out
you're
having
those
consequences
that
you
know
so
many
four
plexes
have
been
taken
out
of
the
for
affordable
housing
market
understand
what
that
quantity.
H
H
To
do
this
when
they
could
just
leave
the
or
get
a
new
like
it's
gonna,
be
more
expensive,
essentially
to
have
four
heating
units
versus
like
just
replacing
the
one
and
then
selling
the
house
off
and
having
it
be
single
family
again,
and
so
I
don't
wanna
wait
for
data
to
see
that
we
have
created
a
problem.
I
want
to.
D
D
I
mean
it's
a
larger
issue
and
I
do
think
we
we
need
programs
to
encourage
more
affordable
and
workforce
housing
in
neighborhoods,
and
particularly
in
neighborhoods,
where
we
are
losing
that
because
you
know
we're
getting
some
and
we'll
get
units,
for
example,
as
part
of
the
merge
project
there
will
be
affordable
units,
but
they
won't
be
at
the
same
level
and
they'll
likely
be
efficiency,
whereas
in
a
home
you
might
have
a
two
bedroom
that
a
family
could
live
in,
and
so
we
we
do
need
to
be
mindful
of
it.
But
I
think.
H
I
guess
I
just
don't
want
to
sacrifice
these
units
in
the
hope
that
we're
going
to
have
other
ones
when
we
know
for
a
fact
that,
like
the
development
of
the
drake
neighborhood,
has
caused
some
of
this
already
like.
I
don't
think
that
we
should
just
let
it
keep
happening.
I
think
I
would
rather
mitigate
ahead
of
time
so
that
we
don't
push
people
out
of
the
remaining
units
that
are
in
the
neighborhood.
H
A
Suanne
question:
do
we
have
any
idea?
Let's
say
there
was
a
one
of
these
houses
that
had
been
single-family
got
converted
into
multiple
units.
I
mean
I've
seen
where
single
family
has
turned
into
seven
units,
so
you've
got
in
that
house
an
hvac
that
is
full
house
and
we're
now
trying
to
mitigate
the
spread
of
disease
and
germs
and
and
smoke
and
everything
else.
So
it's
a
public
health
issue.
C
C
C
B
How
so
I
I
think
we
need,
I
think
we
need
to
continue
with
the
and
we
are
constantly
trying
to
provide
affordable
housing
units
in
our
neighborhoods
and
we've.
We've
talked
about
the
different
programs
in
the
tools
that
we
have
available
and
they're
very,
very
restricted.
So
safety
isn't
is
number
one
in
this
scenario
and
it
doesn't
do
anything
to
we're
going
to
continue
trying
to
create
those
affordable
housing
opportunities
in
the
neighborhood.
H
There's
no
safety.
If
there's
no
units,
I
mean
like
it's,
it's
safety
is
absolutely
number
one,
but
if
somebody
gets
pushed
out
of
their
living
situation,
who
have
we
made
more
safe?
I'm
not
saying
that
we
shouldn't
do
this.
I'm
saying
we
absolutely
should
do
this
with
the
intention
that
we
don't
cause
anybody
to
be
pushed
out
of
their
home,
because
a
landlord
doesn't
want
to
update
it
and
make
it
safer
people
because
they
don't
like
that.
B
H
We're
not
saving
this
house
and
that's
what
I'm
talking
about.
Is
this
specific
housing
where
we
are
caught,
we're
making
landlords
update
their
property
to
make
them
safe?
It
is
financially
it's
a
financial
incentive
for
landlords
not
to
have
that
property
anymore.
Then,
if
they
have
to
invest
in
it,
they
don't
want
to.
They
don't
want
to
do
that.
They'd
rather
just
sell
it
off
and
not
have
to
make
that
improvement,
and
so
I
assume
this
is
not
your
problem
to
solve,
necessarily
because
you
need
to
make
the
but.
C
I'm
part
of
it,
yes,
but
you
need
to
make
the
rental
code
now
I'm
walking
away
from
that
discussion,
but
I
I
do
understand
what
you're
saying
I
totally
get
it
and
bringing
this
forward.
I
knew
that
was
part
of
the
discussion.
Yeah,
I'm
not
that's,
not
lost
on
me,
but
in
my
heart
I
I
can't
not
bring
it
forward,
knowing
that
somebody
could
be
injured
or
die
in
a
fire.
H
And
I
can't-
and
in
my
heart
I
can't
ignore
the
fact
that
people
are
going
to
get
pushed
out
of
their
homes
at
the
same
time
like
and
that's
not
our
fault.
We
need
to
make
it
safe,
but
we
also
need
to
make
sure
that
landlords
are
not
just
going
to
throw
people
out
because
they
don't
want
to
make
it
safe
for
them.
E
In
some
cases,
too,
if
a
house
that
we
took
over
because
a
person
wanted
to
sell,
we
found
housing
for
those
people.
We
found
other
housing
because
what
they
were
in
was
not
safe
and
it
would
not
have
been
acceptable
under
code
or
whatever.
So
there
are
many
cases
where
people
are
finding
other
housing
and
in
new
units
coming
up
or
whatever
so.
H
E
H
E
H
C
C
H
I
don't
think
that
this
is
solved
by
just
saying:
oh
we're,
building
affordable
units
elsewhere,
especially
when
we
know
the
affordable
units
like
I'm
like
I'm
thinking
it
was
drake
neighbor,
because
I
know
what's
happening
there.
There,
like
the
affordable
units
in
the
drake
neighborhood,
the
units
in
the
drake
neighborhood
are
not
affordable
at
the
same
rates
that
the
units
in
the
converted
housing
was.
H
E
Okay,
if
you
saw
the
house
that
I
saw
that
we
that
was
not
people
should
not
have
been
in
there,
I
mean
it
wasn't
fit,
they
were
charging,
I
don't
think
was
affordable.
I
mean
we
don't
even
know
what
they
charge
just
because
it's
a
house
doesn't
mean
they
are
over
charging
for
what
people
are
getting.
So
I
think
that
we
have
to
be
cognizant
of
that
and
still
work
on
more
affordability
and
try
to
develop
more
and
that's
what
I
think
everybody's
been
trying
to
do
and.
H
We
need
to
have
safety
and
things
like
that,
but
the
landlord
is
more
likely
to
say
I
don't
want
to
buy
five
furnaces,
so
I'm
just
gonna
keep
my
one
and
turn
it
into
a
house
and
then
sell
it
to
somebody
rich
and
then
it's
just
gonna
be
a
neighborhood
full
of
rich
people
when
it
was
not
historically
that
we
just
need
to
be
cognizant
of
that.
We
need
to
have
a
solution
when
we
are
implementing
things
like
this,
because
it's
a
multifaceted
issue.
G
I
C
C
How
do
we
do
more
for
protection
of
tenants
that
is
sort
of
it's
together,
but
it's
separate
I
mean
I
can
deal
with
the
rental
code
issues
and
the
safety
issue.
The
larger
social
issue
is
sort
of
outside
of
you
know
nid's
purview,
but
I'm
willing
to
have
those
conversations
and
see
if
there's
some
data
that
we
can
gather
as
we
go
through
this.
D
D
Well,
but
the
useful
piece
of
information
we
should
be
identifying
the
number
of
units
in
in
places
like
that
right,
correct,
so
every
every
every
place
that
has
units
that
are
affected
by
this.
So
if
there's
a
house
with
five
units,
we
collect
that
data
house
with
five
units
we
would
know
if
they
renew
their
rental
code
and
come
up
to
code
or
not
or
if
they
sell
the
property.
So
we
could
track
whether
or
not
they're
renewing
their
rental
code.
C
D
H
Would
say
it's
100,
fair
representation.
I
think
it's
mostly
fair
representation,
I'm
with
not
necessarily
building
additional
units,
but
maintaining
the
units
that
we
have,
and
that
might
not
be
in
the
specific
structure,
because
it
might
be
a
really
negative.
You
know
living
situation,
but
it's
not
always
a
negative
living
situation,
and
so,
if
we're
talking
about
building
additional
units,
I
mean
I
would
be
specifically
thinking
of
building
additional
units
in
the
neighborhood
like
in
the
same
area
where
we're
losing
those
units.
H
But
really
I'm
talking
about
maintaining
like
people
live
in
rental
situations
for
years
and
years
at
a
time
sometimes-
and
you
know
having
like
essentially
creating
a
program
where
it's
going
to
incentivize
a
landlord
to
say-
I
don't
want
to
rent
this
property
in
this
way
anymore.
I
want
to
reduce
units.
H
I
want
to
like
eliminate
this
as
a
rental
unit
that
is
pushing
people
out
of
a
place
that
they
have
lived
for
any
amount
of
time
or
plan
to
live
for
any
amount
of
time,
and
so
creating
additional,
affordable
units
might
be
the
solution.
In
some
cases,
when
there
are
other
code
violations,
you
know
creating
a
negative
living
situation,
but
it
isn't
necessarily
the
goal
like.
I
am
saying
that
I
don't
want
to
encourage
density
in
these
places
to
go
down.
C
You
know
four
plexes
in
the
neighborhood,
where
we've
reduced
the
number
of
units
in
these
older
houses
that
are
dedicated
as
affordable
housing.
I
mean
that
might
be
the
direction
that
we
need
to
go
as
a
discussion.
So
we
know
that
there's
five
buildings
in
drake
that
are
going
to
reduce
by
five
units.
Can
we
build
an
a
missing
middle?
That's
dedicated
as
affordable
housing
in
that
same
neighborhood
and
allow
tenants
to
stay
in
the
same
neighborhood
and
proactively.
Look
at
how
we
do
that.
E
F
G
To
think
about
the
safety
aspect-
and
I
think
that's
why
you
brought
this
forward
of
current
tenants
that
are
there
that
are
living
with
with
some
of
these
hazards
that
we've
allowed
to
have
put
in
and
leave
in
and
and
so
you
you
know,
you're
asking
to
you
know
to
make
those
changes
for
the
safety
of
the
people
that
are
living
there.
Correct
absolutely
I
mean
I,
I
don't
know
how
we
say.
No
to
that.
I
think
that
we
need
to
definitely
monitor,
as
josh
said
going
forward,
as
some
of
these
changes
are
made.
G
What
are
we
losing,
or
are
we
gaining
some
in
these
neighborhoods
and
kind
of
let's,
let's
keep
track
through
multiple
departments
of
you
know
in
the
neighborhoods?
If
we're,
if
we're
losing
some,
you
know,
did
we
gain
something
built
in
you
know
the
drake
neighborhood
or
on
the
south
side,
or
something
like
that?
I
I
think
that
that's
that's
all
fair
to
say,
but
moving
forward
I
mean
this
is
a
safety
issue
that
we
need
to.
We
need
to
address
now.
H
Yeah
joe,
I'm
absolutely
not
saying
no
to
this,
I'm
saying
100
yes
to
this,
and
also
I
would
like
to
look
at
the
solutions
to
the
not
consequences
in
a
negative
sense,
but
just
the
like
cause
and
effect
type
consequences
that
are
going
to
come
from
it
just
at
the
same
time.
But
I'm
absolutely
not
saying
no
to
this.
G
Yeah,
no,
I
I
agree
100
percent
and-
and
you
know
that
it's
a
little
bit
more
work
that
staff's
gonna
have
to
do
is
going
forward
as
we're
making
these
changes
and
there's
gonna
have
to
be.
You
know
we're
gonna
have
to
document
some
of
the
changes
that
are
being
made.
If
somebody
comes
in
and
says
well,
you
know
I'm
not
doing
that
and
I'm
turning
it
back
into
a
house.
We're
gonna
need
to
know
that
and
that's
going
to
need
to
be
documented
and-
and
I
think
that's
an
important.
I
G
G
H
As
we're
collecting
data
like
going
even
further
than
what
josh
was
talking
about,
it'd
be
nice
to
you
know
like
know
what
what
was
the
result
of
you
know
this
requirement
being
put
into
place
with
that
result,
unless
housing
et
cetera,
it
would
also
be
nice
to
know
what
happened
to
the
people
who
were
living
there
if
they
got
rehoused
somewhere
else
if
their
rent
went
up
if
their
rent
went
down
or
what
else
happened
to
them.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
track
that,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
do
that
than.
B
H
H
H
C
A
A
All
right,
well,
everybody
thank
you
and
suen.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation,
we'll
look
forward
to
seeing
that
ordinance
unless
anybody
has
anything
else
at
this
moment,
we'll
see
you
back
here
this
evening
for
our
pre-meeting
swearing-ins
and
which
will
happen
about
4
30.
I
think
so
with
that
this
meeting
is
adjourned.
D
H
You
I
can
send
y'all
a
photo.
I
have
good
ones,
you
can
put
a
little
cute
photo
on
me.
I
don't
care.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
some
consistency
in
our
photos,
because
we
have
different
framing
of
shots.
We
have
different
backgrounds
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
get
those
consistency.
Some
photos
haven't
been.
We
did
about
four
years,
I
mean
we
can.
D
H
G
H
I
mean
we
just
have
like
a
really
really
infectious
variant
right
now
and
it's
just
dangerous
to
be
putting
ourselves
in
a
situation
we
don't
need
to,
and
we
can
wait
until
like
this
surge
like
went
over
in
just
a
couple
months
in
south
africa.
So
I
mean
we
don't
know
what
the
future
is
going
to
be,
but
hopefully
we're
not
going
to
be
dealing
with
omicron
for
much
longer
and
we'll
see
what
the
next
variant
does.