[StBernard] St. Bernard Office of Community Development issued building permits on three of four construction sites of mixed income apartment complexes in Chalmette

[Westley Annis]

St. Bernard Office of Community Development issued building permits 

on three of four construction sites of mixed income apartment complexes in
Chalmette

 

The St. Bernard Parish Office of Community Development issued building
permits on three of the four construction sites for Provident Realty
Advisors today after Judge Ginger Berrigan released an order on June 30,
2011 implementing fines of $10,000.00 per day for not issuing the ordered
permits.  Parish President Craig P. Taffaro, Jr. had not issued permits
following the federal order without specific direction from the parish
council and the parish had been non-compliant with the June 30th order for
four days, equaling potentially $40,000.00 in fines to St. Bernard Parish.

 

Issues about the validity of Provident attaching to the case, the permitting
process, elevation certification and building practices will be the focus of
St. Bernard Parish Government's appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
in New Orleans.  Having the appellate court hear this case can only happen
following a final judgment by Judge Berrigan at the federal district court
level.  So far, the 5th Circuit has issued a stay relative to the case until
the district level activity is completed.  St. Bernard Parish Government
will continue to seek judicial relief for court costs and fees associated
with the legal battle over the apartment housing development and continues
to raise issues with the state about Provident not following guidelines,
funding requirements, and agreements signed with the state as part of using
the funds made available to them. 

 

St. Bernard Parish Government has maintained that the developments are not
warranted in an already excess housing market and that attempts by the
parish president and several councilmen over the past nearly three years to
reverse a Louisiana Housing Finance Agency decision to grant over 50 million
dollars in financial support through Low Income Housing Tax Credits and
Community Development Block Grant funds has largely fallen short of any
action by any state or federal agency.  Despite building permits for the
construction sites being expired, later issued briefly under duress from HUD
and then revoked, the Provident group has continued construction without a
valid permit, a procedure necessary according to state and local law.  Lead
advocate for the GNOFHAC, James Perry, and proponents of the developments
have continued to raise issues of racism as the basis for objections to the
288 units being developed in St. Bernard Parish.  Taffaro, councilmen, and
residents counter with the fact of the number of vacancies in the rental and
home ownership market as well as the increased diversity that St. Bernard
has experienced since Hurricane Katrina.  

 

"We have led the Gulf Coast region in Recovery for three years because our
residents, returning and new, have committed to building a great St.
Bernard," Taffaro said. "These apartments are one fight in a long list of
obstacles that we have faced - we'll work through this one as well."

 

Councilman Mike Ginart of District D challenged the council members to fight
within the limits of the legal process and that incurring fines for being
defiant to a federal court order is not money well spent.  District C
Councilman Kenny Henderson and Council Chairman Frank Auderer agreed in
statements to the public at the July 5 Parish Council meeting, and no formal
action was taken that would have made additional funds available for any
additional non-compliance with the federal court's order.  The parish
council must authorize unbudgeted expenditures.  The council was unanimous
in their support of the parish administration to continue mounting whatever
legal challenges can be used in getting the entire case to the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

 

Ginart said appealing the ruling is the only way to go.

 

"We have been ordered to issue the permits and ordered to release
electricity. You do it and you appeal the decision you disagree with,"
Ginart said. "As far as I'm concerned, we have no choice. It's not my money
to give. When we talk about paying the fines, what happens is we would have
to stop providing services; we would have to lay people off. That's not what
we want to do. It's not like we have a benefactor to pay for it. It's the
people's money."

 

Auderer agreed. 

 

"Paying the judicial fines is not a wise expenditure of the people's money,"
Auderer said. "We ought to issue the permits and we ought to continue our
legal struggles.  I don't think we are going to get much relief from the
federal judge. Our best opportunity is to appeal to the 5th Circuit and the
only way to get to the 5th Circuit is to stop putting obstacles in the way
which allows Provident to go to the federal court to get relief and that
delays us getting to the 5th Circuit."

 

Henderson said this doesn't mean that elected officials don't understand
that the majority of residents oppose these apartments.

"I think we just couldn't afford as a parish to spend $10,000, $25,000,
$50,000 and $100,000 a day because that was where it was going to end it
up," Henderson said. "I think the majority of St. Bernard people don't want
those apartments, including myself, but we couldn't afford the fines. This
is a federal judge putting these fines on us, and how do we go against a
federal judge?" 

 

District A Councilman Ray Lauga said, "I can't condone action that I believe
violates local and state laws. But seeing the court has left no options to
St. Bernard Parish and that the parish doesn't have the finances to pay the
fines, hopefully in the future, we will be able to get a more reasonable
hearing in another court."

 

Council Vice Chairman Wayne J. Landry said, "I think it's a shame that back
in November of 2008 I worked aggressively at trying to prevent the LHFA
approval, and here we sit today with this whole entire development
judicially rammed into our parish against the wishes of local government and
its people. St. Bernard's unstable real estate market is not in the position
at this time to accommodate this development." 

 

District B Councilman George Cavignac said, "We utterly disagree with the
judicial ruling that is causing a great conflict between state law which
protects the parish's rights to govern itself and the federal judge's ruling
that continues to force this development. Unfortunately at this stage, we
can only hope we get relief from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals should we
be able to get our case to that level." 

 

District E Councilman Fred Everhardt, "No one in the parish including the
elected officials wanted to see these apartment complexes come to the
parish. Judge Berrigan ruled against us on the basis of alleged racism, and
we are saying it is the economic impact because we have a lot of affordable
housing. We have a duty to be stewards of the people's money.  At the end of
the day, I can't see spending $10,000 a day when we are never going to win
this in the district court. If we get it out of Judge Berrigan's court and
get it to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, we might have some kind of
chance."

 

The issue with the Provident development started in 2008 when the Meraux
Foundation agreed to sell three of the four sites to Provident Realty with
the fourth site being sold by the Torres and Randazzo family trust.  

 

As far back as 2008, community leaders made their opposition to the
developments known during multiple meetings including President Taffaro, and
Councilmen Wayne J. Landry, George Cavignac, Mike Ginart, Ray Lauga and Fred
Everhardt as well as during testimony to the Louisiana Housing Finance
Agency by Taffaro, Landry, Cavignac and Everhardt in attempts to reverse the
LHFA decision to fund the projects. Such pleas garnered no support from the
LHFA, and the agency granted Provident $53 million of low-income housing tax
credits and Community Development Block Grant funds for the project.

 

St. Bernard Parish Government's position has consistently been that the
apartments should not be built. After three court hearings in 2009, a court
order forced Parish Government to issue the permits in October of 2009.
However, Provident didn't seek to start construction until December 2010.
Parish building permits expire after six months, and state and local law
requires that builders reapply after that time period has passed.

 

Rather than go through the reapplication process, the developer forced the
Parish Council to reissue the permits in February of 2011 under duress
because HUD officials said the parish's federal recovery funding could be
taken away.  

 

At a court hearing in early June, 2011, a Provident attorney read into the
court records efforts by Taffaro to stop the development. He said among
other actions, Taffaro issued a cease and desist order on February 22; he
attempted to issue another cease and desist order on March 3; he sought to
get a temporary restraining order on March 31 to enforce the state court
ruling to shut work down; he issued another cease and desist order on April
8, and he filed another unsuccessful for cease and desist motion in June,
2011. 

 

On June 30, 2011, Judge Berrigan held a hearing to allow Provident Realty
Advisors and St. Bernard Parish to cross examine the court appointed expert
reviewing the technical building and permit issues of the case. Without
leaving the bench or recessing after the expert's testimony, Judge Berrigan
ruled on Provident's motion for contempt and ordered St. Bernard Parish to
issue permits on three of the four sites and to authorize electricity on all
four sites by 3 p.m. on July 1 or face sanctions of $10,000 a day. 

 

On July 1, 2011, St. Bernard Parish Government requested Judge Berrigan to
stay her June 30 order because the matter was to be discussed at the Council
July 5 meeting. Within one hour, Judge Berrigan denied the parish's request
to stay her ruling. 

 

On Tuesday, July 5, 2011, Provident filed a motion to enforce the existing
fines and to increase the fines to as much as $100,000 per day.

 

###