A racial and economic justice advocacy group wants to join in Ramsey County’s lawsuit against the city of Arden Hills over the stalled Rice Creek Commons development project — and they’re asking a court to let them do it.
The court action, called a “notice of intervention,” would allow the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability to join the county’s lawsuit against Arden Hills as a plaintiff, without the county’s permission.
City and county negotiators haven’t met for months to talk about the 427-acre project on the county-owned site formerly known as the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant — a project in which the county, which owns the land, has already invested $41 million.
In May, Ramsey County filed suit against Arden Hills in an attempt to break their legal partnership over the project, saying negotiations over density, funding and affordable housing had deadlocked.
Arden Hills officials have said the county has not shared its goals about the project with them in a timely matter — if at all — and still wish to partner on the project.
The Alliance’s notice, filed in Ramsey County District Court this week, alleges that a previously agreed-upon goal of affordable-housing units for the project — a primary sticking point in negotiations — violates the federal Fair Housing Act, and also that Arden Hills violated state statutes relating to its own comprehensive plan.
The Minneapolis-based Alliance is a coalition of 32 community organizations that advocates for “racial justice, economic justice, environmental justice, and health equity,” according to an online statement.
It has also been one of the most — if not the most — aggressive advocates of affordable housing on the Commons project.
If this week’s motion is resolved in the Alliance’s favor, “it puts us at the table,” said Russ Adams, the Alliance’s executive director. “We’re very serious in that we expect both the city and county to abide by the Fair Housing Act. And our sense is that the county is now taking that serious.”
Both the county and city of Arden Hills did not comment beyond saying they were reviewing the Alliance’s motion.
City officials have agreed to 1,460 units on the property, of which 10 percent would be “affordable” at 80 percent of area median income — a number they note the county itself proposed last year.
The Alliance’s notice states “this level of ‘affordable’ housing is wholly inadequate. Persons with median incomes of all but one of the top most in-demand jobs in the state cannot afford rents at 80% of AMI and most cannot even come close.”
Area median income levels, when in comes to state affordable-housing standards, typically range from 30 percent to 80 percent.
The lawsuit states that at the given 80 percent median income level, a single apartment occupant would qualify with an annual income of up to $52,850 and pay $1,321 in monthly rent. The suit notes that the median income of area clerks and cashiers, nursing assistants, food service workers and truckers is much lower.
A three-person household could make $67,950 and pay $1,699 in rent.
The suit states that the county started to reconsider the old 80 percent goal “only after extensive testimony and communications from housing advocates” in mid- to late 2018.
In an interview, Adams said that his group had sent multiple letters to the city, county and Metropolitan Council about the project, and in September they felt the county was listening.
The county, in a March staff report, wrote of moving toward a “maximum development scenario” of 2,500 units in order to make financing for affordable housing easier. They now want twice as much affordable housing at the site, in categories catering to those making as little as 30 percent of area median income.
The suit additionally alleges that Arden Hills did not adhere to its 2040 comprehensive plan — a document required every decade by the Metropolitan Council, according to state statute. It argues that the city said it would meet an affordable-housing goal utilizing the TCAAP site, but could not possibly meet that goal with the 80 percent standards.
“TCAAP plans call for only 146 units at 80% of AMI on the TCAAP site, while at the same time the (city’s) Comprehensive Plan calls for 229 units affordable at or below 50% of AMI on the TCAAP site,” the suit states.
The suit argues that the affordable-housing level Arden Hills currently wants will have a “disparate impact” on minority households who have much lower median incomes and perpetuates racial segregation, both violations of the federal Fair Housing Act.
The court order would require that the Alliance’s allegations also be addressed in Ramsey County’s suit, which the Alliance would join as a co-plaintiff.
The suit also asks for a ruling mandating that the city develop plans and agreements to produce higher levels of affordable housing.
