Protect Central Park residents

The plan to rebuild Central Park Village will test Tampa's commitment to provide affordable housing for the poor. By midmonth, Tampa's housing authority wants bids from developers for replacing the 50-year-old housing project with a mixed-income neighborhood northeast of downtown. City and housing officials were right not to tie themselves, at this stage, to any one idea - they first want to find a quality developer with the pockets to build and operate the project. But low-income residents who need housing assistance should benefit from any selloff of public land.

The authority's invitation to developers is the biggest step in years toward improving living conditions for 1,300 residents at Central Park. The cinder-block project is a high-crime slum, and replacing it will improve health and safety as much as the economics of the area. The authority wants developers to create a mixed-income community and use the 28-acre site as an anchor to feed ongoing development in the corridor between downtown and Ybor City.

By remaining open for now, the authority will attract a wider field of developers and retain leverage to negotiate a deal more beneficial to the public. Already some important protections are in place. The developer would have to relocate residents during construction and give some the right to return. Those rights need to be expressed more clearly. The builder would also be required to preserve a historic church, develop a "socially and economically diverse" community, target housing at various income levels and offer some construction jobs to housing residents.

The authority is trying to walk a fine line, expressing its desire for a "market-driven" proposal while underscoring its mission to provide housing for the poor. Realistically, any effort to improve housing for residents will involve private-sector investment.

The trick for the authority will be using its prime real estate effectively on behalf of Central Park residents. That land is the authority's only real asset, and officials should not trade it for any concession that does not expand housing opportunities. This is valuable land, and the city should ensure it continues to serve a needy population.

[Last modified May 7, 2005, 01:02:18]