BLOG - Post your comments here
Loveland - July 17, 2014

Alison Hade, Loveland’s Community Partnership Office Administrator, explained to Loveland’s City
Council Tuesday night that privately owned “affordable” housing projects being subsidized by the City of
Loveland will not be considering applications from anyone from out of town who “
resembles” Loveland’
s current demographic which is mostly white.  Minority applicants from outside the community, on the
other hand, are encouraged to apply through Loveland’s Affordable Housing Authority ongoing

Hade was addressing a question raised by Councilman John Fogle shortly before he and seven of his
colleagues voted to approve a near $1 million fee-waiver subsidy for a newly proposed senior
“affordable” housing project ironically named “Traditions At Loveland Senior Apartments.”   The project
will be located on 12.7 acres north of Orchards Shopping Center between U.S. 287 and North Lincoln
Avenue off 33rd.  The three story project will house 154 mostly low-income smaller apartments for
people 55 years of age and older and is being developed by out of state developer the Inland Group.

Councilman Fogle asked Hade,

“If we are going to be spending Loveland citizen’s tax dollars my interest would be in making sure
that we are housing Loveland citizens.  How do you propose we put in some preferential treatment
system so that Loveland residents end up moving into your new place and not importing people from

In response to Fogle’s question, Hade explained the process she is implementing for a recently approved
project near Walmart in north Loveland for Indiana low-income apartment developer Pedcor,

“It is a pretty dangerous game to play because the last thing you would want is to have a fair housing
violation.  So what we are actually going to do with Pedcor is look at who applies and the make-up of
the people who apply.  If they are Loveland residents than there is nothing to do.  If they are people
from another area and they have some sort of a disability status or are part of one of the seven
protected classes than there is nothing to do.  If, in fact,
they resemble the Loveland population and
they are from a different area than we are going to open up the discussion to see how we can manage

Manage it” in this context is a polite term for denying an application.  This is evident as Hade assured the
council the process she described will prevent people from outside Loveland from filling the city
subsidized project.   Due to restrictions in federal law, the only people from outside Loveland they can
turn away are caucasians who don’t currently live in the community but are of a national origin, religion
or other characteristic already common within Loveland.

The “
seven protected classes” refers to Title VII in federal law first created in the 1964 Civil Rights Act
which outlawed housing and employment discrimination against people based on race, color, sex, religion
and national origin.  Later interpretations of that law by courts narrowly construe it to mean only those
races, national origins or religions traditionally discriminated against in the past and not already well
represented in a particular community.  Therefore, Hade's comment is consistant with this interpretations
of the law and how it is applied in fair housing cases.

Fogle went on to complain that Ft. Collins City Councilwoman Lisa Poppaw emailed Loveland’s City
Council encouraging them to pass the proposed subsidy.   Fogle and other councilors questioned why
Poppaw, who represents Ft. Collins residents, is advocating that Loveland subsidize the low-income
senior project.  Fogle’s concerns about building subsidized housing for people from outside the
community came on the heels of a similar question raised during the hearing to approve the Pedcor low-
income subsidized housing project last April.

Last April, Councilman Troy Krenning questioned city staff how Loveland residents might benefit from
the city’s $1.5 million subsidy to the private company Pedcor to build 224 low-income apartments near
the Walmart in north Loveland along Highway 287.   Krenning wondered aloud why Loveland taxpayers
would subsidize a project in the city to house people from outside the community.  The developer
responded by arguing future low-income residents will be shopping at Walmart thus helping to raise the
city’s retail sales tax revenue.  In essence, the developer acknowled his heavily subsidized project will
likely fill-up its units with people coming from outside the community.

Pedcor is a controversial developer whose 10,000 apartment units throughout California, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Virginia, and Alabama are causing
considerable problems in the communities where they were constructed.  Nearby residents of these
projects accuse the company of poor management thus creating “instant slums” where crime rates rocket
upward after an undesirable criminal element is drawn into their low-income heavily government
subsidized projects.  A community group working to prevent Pedcor from building a project in their
community provided
the following list of news articles regarding efforts by residents of cities across the
country to stop Pedcor projects.

Loveland’s acting city attorney responded to Councilor Krenning’s question that she had never been
asked that question about ensuring Loveland residents (and not people from outside the community) can
benefit from city housing subsidies and didn’t know how to respond.  Alison Hade volunteered to
research the issue during the meeting and get back to council.  Hade also referred to the ArtSpace project
in downtown Loveland which assigns a point system for applicants to favor existing residents over white
out of town applicants.  Hade’s public comments in response to Fogle last Tuesday came as the result of
the system apparently developed since the April council meeting to screen white tenants out of both the
ArtSpace and Pedcor Projects.  Whether the same reverse discrimination is going to be implemented at
“Traditions at Loveland Senior Apartments” is being negotiated between the developer and City of
Loveland.  One problem is age can also be considered a protected class therefore anyone old enough to
qualify for the senior apartments is most likely immune from having Hade "manage" their application for
housing.  This outcome would mean any low-income senior in the country can benefit from the city's
subsidy thus move to Loveland to enjoy city taxpayer subsidized housing.

Pedcor Seen As Crime Magnet

Residents of Cary Illinois have been fighting their Town Council after it approved an affordable housing
project for Pedcor similar to the 224 unit project approved by Loveland’s City Council last April.  The
website was created by residents hoping to keep government subsidized housing along
with the crime that often follows out of their community.  In a letter to the Mayor, Cary an annonymous
Cary resident provides
the link between increased crime in a community and the rising tide of affordable
housing projects; especially by Pedcor.

On another page of the same website,
news articles of residents fighting to keep Pedcor projects out of
their communities across the country is listed.   In one response on the associated blog, the Pedcor
property manager for a project in Carmel, Indiana is rated by the Better Business Bureau as having an F
rating.   None of these controversies discussed by Loveland ‘s City Council which according to Loveland
Mayor Cecil Gutierrez, recruited Pedcor to “
invest” in Loveland.

Who Is Eligible to Live In Privately Owned City of Loveland Subsidized Housing?

According to 2012 Census figures, over 25% of Hispanics (13.6 million) in the United States and 27.2% of
blacks (10.9 million) are living in poverty.  The City of Loveland’s affordable housing subsidies allow even
people earning above the poverty income level to receive subsidized housing provided their household
income is less than 3 times an average rental unit in Loveland.   With more than 37% of Americans now
classified as non-white minorities it seems the “problem” of affordable housing in Loveland cannot be
satisfied by outside developers being subsidized to build even more low-income housing for people from
outside the community.

Larimer County’s total population was 315,988 and 93.8% white according to the 2012 Census and
“persons below poverty level” estimated at nearly 14%.   Regionally, Loveland’s population of just over
66,000 residents accounts for a small percentage of the county’s total population.  City subsidized low-
income housing projects that reject people who are white from outside the city will never solve the
regional “affordable” housing shortage as the sepcific regional demographic of people seeking low-
income housing are excluded.
Low-Income Area Whites Not Welcome In
Loveland Subsidized Housing
Excerpt from the CATO Instute "Public
Housing and Rental Subsidies" by
Howard Husock

read full article here

Perversely, subsidized housing
advocates usually make matters worse
when they try to ban the conditions that
offend them. By insisting on
unrealistically high regulatory standards
that drive up housing prices beyond the
means of the poor, they help create
housing shortages. Since the New Deal,
a flood of regulatory mandates—
whether for the number of closets, the
square feet of kitchen counter space, or
handicapped access—have caused
private owners and builders to bypass
the low-income market in particular.
Under current building codes and zoning
laws, much of the distinctive lower-cost
housing that shaped the architectural
identity of America's cities—such as
Brooklyn's attached brownstones with
basement apartments—could not be
built today.

It is true that even with relaxed building
and housing codes, we might not be able
to build brand-new housing within the
reach of all those with low incomes. But
housing structures last for decades,
which facilitates the continual passing
along of gradually older homes to those
of more modest means. When new
homes are built for the middle class, their
homes are passed along to the lower
middle class. When lower-middle-class
families move up to better
accommodations, they pass their homes
and apartments along to those who are
poorer, and so it goes.

A major social benefit of private and
unsubsidized rental and housing markets
is the promotion of responsible behavior.
Tenants and potential homeowners must
establish a good credit history, save
money for security deposits or
downpayments, come with good
references from employers, and pay the
rent or mortgage on time. Renters must
maintain their apartments decently and
keep an eye on their children to avoid
eviction. By contrast, public housing,
housing vouchers, and other types of
housing subsidies undermine or eliminate
these benefits of market-based housing.