HUD: City Must Repay $4M Huntington Meadows Grant
The Cincinnati Post is reporting that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is demanding the repayment of nearly $4 million in grants given to the City of Cincinnati to renovate Huntington Meadows and maintain the site as low-income housing for at least five years after the renovations were completed.  Apparently, HUD spent the last two years investigating whether the City did enough to keep Huntington Meadows open and decided they didn't.
 
What are they thinking at City Hall?  Looks like John Cranley and the Impaction Ordinance crowd are about to get the city's finances impacted by HUD.  But guess what?  The City's finances are generated by people like you and me.  When the City repays HUD, ultimately, you and I are writing the checks.  And the $4 million HUD is owed is no small payment.  HUD outlined three reimbursement options.  1) The City can repay the $4 in one lump sum from non-federal sources. 2) The City can agree to an annual reduction in HOME grants. 3) The City can substitute the 264 low-income units elsewhere.
 
The last option is the best option because it replaces the low-income housing that was lost when Huntington Meadows closed.  Housing for the poor should be the goal.  But even HUD, without dealing with the anti-poor crowd at City Hall, concedes that this option is unlikely.  While HUD shouldn't let the City continue to believe it can take federal funds designed for low-income housing and spend them on housing projects that benefit people of all income ranges, it also should not punish poor people who had nothing to do with the current situation, and in fact did their best to fight against the City's efforts.  (I guess some might hold the poor responsible for helping elect the current City Council even though it is more likely that they didn't vote at all.)  
 
Kevin Osborne gets kudos for mentioning this:

A group of former tenants at Huntington Meadows is suing the city in federal court, alleging local officials conspired to evict people unnecessarily as part of their plan to build upscale housing there.

Among the lawsuit's claims is that Vice Mayor Alicia Reece improperly used her office to gain financial benefit for herself and her family by pushing for the complex's demolition.
 
Joining the tenants as a plaintiff is a California firm which offered to buy the site and maintain it as low-income housing, only to be ignored by city officials.

The lawsuit alleges that the city violated several state and federal laws by denying residents equal protection under the law and through breach of contract and abuse of process.

Tenants allege the evictions were pushed through solely to advance a plan that Reece got City Council to approve in 2000 for redeveloping the Seymour Avenue business district in Bond Hill.

Getting rid of the low-income apartments would increase the value of surrounding properties, attorneys said.

Those properties include Integrity Hall, a nearby conference center owned by Reece's father, Steven Reece.