![1600Pacific](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/dentonfracking/20141106221350im_/http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/files/2014/05/1600Pacific.jpg)
1600 Pacific, otherwise known as the old LTV Tower, otherwise known as the building that brought the city to HUD's attention (again) (David Woo/Staff photographer)
Just months ago it appeared Dallas City Hall might have to pay millions of dollars to resolve affordable-housing discrimination allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. But according to an agreement between the city and the feds signed Wednesday and released late this evening, Dallas will not owe anyone anything — not HUD and not the developers who initially claimed the city acted illegally when it refused to subsidize their proposed redevelopment of a downtown Dallas high-rise.
“Under this agreement, the City admits no wrongdoing, pays no money to HUD, and gives no relief or money to 1600 Pacific Building, L.P,” says a statement from the city.
For now, at least, all the city will have to do is continue to develop its so-called Housing Plus plan, a direct result of HUD’s investigation, and host what it’s calling a “regional housing symposium.” City manager A.C. Gonzalez and city attorney Warren Ernst will also present the city council with “a recommendation to expand the non-discrimination ordinance to include a prohibition of discrimination based on source of income.” And the city will have to present semi-regular reports to HUD showing that it’s not engaged in the kind of behavior of which it was initially accused.
Those accusations were initially slung at 1500 Marilla by developers Craig MacKenzie and Curtis Lockey, who in 2007 had hoped to redevelop 1600 Pacific downtown. The city’s Office of Economic Development refused, insisting that that it wasn’t a good deal: The pair wanted $102 million in government subsidies for a building that would wind up being worth about $37 million. In 2010 the two filed a complaint with HUD alleging that Karl Zavitkovsky, head of the city’s Office of Economic Development, told them “Downtown Dallas is not the right place for low-income housing” and “Low-income housing is not part of the vision for Downtown Dallas.”
HUD’s regional office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity opened an investigation, and Nov. 22 of last year sent the city a 29-page Letter of Findings of Non-Compliance to the city, which said there was sufficient evidence that showed “there was a pattern of negative reactions to projects that would provide affordable housing in the northern sector of Dallas and that those decisions were inconsistent with the goals required by HUD program obligations.” The city responded six weeks later with its own 59-page missive disputing every one of HUD’s findings.
The city and HUD are still arguing over some of those. But according to the agreement, which is posted below, HUD acknowledges that “at least some of its findings are incorrect,” and rather than drag this out, it’s willing to settle with the city and be done with it.
“In order to expedite just resolution of the matter and to avoid further administrative procedures or litigation over the remaining matters, the parties have agreed to enter into this Agreement,” says the document signed by Gonzalez, Ernst and Bryan Greene, HUD’s general deputy assistant secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “The parties agree that all issues, findings, concerns, and questions in the Letter are fully and finally resolved and superseded by this Agreement.”
Lockey and MacKenzie, whose whistle-blower lawsuit was most recently dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in August, will also take nothing.
“I appreciate the immediate attention Secretary [Julián] Castro gave to this matter and the leadership he showed to make housing for all a priority in the City of Dallas,” said Mayor Mike Rawlings in a prepared statement. He is not available to comment further, as he’s on a plane bound for England.
“This agreement allows us as a city to move forward in partnership with HUD to continue to serve the needs of our community,” Gonzalez says in the same release. “We were able to show HUD the inaccuracies in their initial report and feel confident in our ability to work together.”
We will have much more in coming days. Until then the agreement is below.