IBJNews

City meets deadline to get federal money for housing projects

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

The city just met a Sept. 20 deadline for securing $29 million in federal money that will be used to acquire, demolish and rehabilitate foreclosed and abandoned homes.

Work already has begun on some of the projects, spread throughout four Indianapolis neighborhoods that were chosen based on factors such as crime and foreclosure and vacancy rates.

OTB government A boarded-up double near the intersection of Park Avenue and 29th Street is due to be rehabilitated. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The city’s money is part of $4 billion that was distributed to communities across the United States in 2008 as a way to address the country’s housing troubles.

Indianapolis must spend its share of the dollars—dubbed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program—by 2013. The recent deadline was the date by which the funds had to be officially assigned to specific projects. Note: It could happen but it’s desirable to find funding

Not-for-profit and for-profit developers are handling the rehabilitation projects. In recent months, some of the groups had been struggling to leverage their federal funds with private dollars because of the scarcity of loans in the tough economy.

But in recent weeks, groups such as The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, Local Initiatives Support Corp., Clarian Health and Citizens Energy Group have stepped up to assist the not-for-profit developers, said Bill Taft, executive director of LISC.

Interest in the projects among traditional lenders such as banks also has increased.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT