Government

The birth of Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition

MINNESOTA SPOKESMAN-RECORDER — On its surface, Glendale stood as one of the highest rated public housing complexes in Minneapolis Public Housing Authority’s (MPHA) portfolio. Built in 1952, it is the city’s oldest public housing structure and is the only public housing built expressly for families, comprised of separate townhomes — instead of high rises — each with its own front porch, basement and back yard. They are also nestled within the affluent Southeast Minneapolis’ Prospect Park neighborhood and sit on prime real estate.

Published

7 years ago

June 14, 2019

Mel Reeves

By Mel Reeves

News Analysis

Last week, the MSR explored Minneapolis’ public housing rehab woes related to HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration. This week, the MSR explores the birth of its staunchest opponent: Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition.

For years, Glendale Townhomes have served as point of contention for residents who feared gentrification, privatization and the subsequent destruction of Minneapolis’ public housing.

On its surface, Glendale stood as one of the highest rated public housing complexes in Minneapolis Public Housing Authority’s (MPHA) portfolio. Built in 1952, it is the city’s oldest public housing structure and is the only public housing built expressly for families, comprised of separate townhomes — instead of high rises — each with its own front porch, basement and back yard. They are also nestled within the affluent Southeast Minneapolis’ Prospect Park neighborhood and sit on prime real estate.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) inspectors had also given the townhomes high marks — a score of 98 out of 100 — according to housings inspections released in 2010.

The first occupants were U.S. veterans and their families, then by Black families who migrated to Minneapolis looking for better employment opportunities. Now, the Townhomes include a mix of South East Asians, East Africans (Somali and Oromo) immigrants and refugees, Whites and African American descendants of slaves.

Despite glowing reports, residents were demanding repairs be made to their townhomes, including fixing faulty electrical outlets, corroded pipes, upgrading the heating system, and upgrading pest control efforts. But, according to the residents, the buildings were not in such a state of disrepair that would require demolition and reconstruction.

“We found out people were not getting enough heat in their homes — there were issues with the heating system. The homes were in good shape, just in need of minor repairs and more pest control,” said Ladan Yusuf, Glendale resident and community activist.

In 2015, the MPHA announced plans to make requested repairs.

There was one caveat. The reconstruction plan would be achieved by demolishing and reconstructing the housing, requiring residents to temporarily relocate. Repairs would also be completed using MPHA’s RAD program (Rental Assistance Demonstration) which allows the agency to secure funds through private sources.

Yusuf said MPHA’s Director of Facilities and Development, Tim Gaetz told Glendale residents that their townhomes were targeted because their repairs were the costliest.

“MPHA complained they didn’t have enough money,” explained Yusuf. “They started charging people for minor repairs. We asked, ‘Why are they charging folks for minor repairs, like replacing a doorknob?’ Later, we found out that they were sitting on millions, but had stopped putting money in Glendale.”

The MPHA plan called for tearing down the current 184 townhomes and replacing them with a mixed-income complex of 550 new apartments, some of which would be reserved for use as Section 8 housing. Residents were told they would be able to return using Section 8 vouchers. The agency also promised rents would not be raised and the private investors would alter the long-term use of the buildings.

At first glance, residents did not see much wrong with the RAD proposal, but upon further examination, it had the potential to decrease public housing stock.

While returning tenants would have a Section 8 voucher which allows residents to pay 30 percent of their income toward rent, the new project-based public housing would only guarantee a certain amount of affordable housing stock over the long term. There was no guarantee the housing that currently accepts Section 8 vouchers would remain so.

Glendale residents pushed back, forming Defend Glendale & Public Housing Coalition, a grassroots residents’ group led by Yusuf to oppose relocation and address privatization fears. Residents protested, calling the plan a “glorified privatization scheme,” which would lead to gentrification and displacement of the current residents and the elimination of Glendale as public housing. The tenants expressed grave doubts about the agency’s promises that they would be allowed to return after redevelopment was completed.

Relocation would also mean disruption of their livelihood, as there was no Section 8 housing in Prospect Park and very little in the adjoining neighborhoods and not much more in Minneapolis city limits, resulting in residents being scattered all over the Twin Cities metro area causing disruption and hardship, especially for elderly residents and those who rely on public transportation.

“It was obvious to me and my neighbors that they had been purposely neglecting upkeep for the last 10 years so they would have an excuse to spring this RAD plan on us,” said Yusuf.

Defend Glendale and its community allies, which include members of the Prospect Park Association the area’s neighborhood group, became a vocal and visible opponent of the changes, organizing community meetings and protests at Minneapolis City Hall and at key locations, calling for “zero displacement and zero gentrification.”

Glendale residents eventually filed a HUD complaint about lack of heat in their homes. A Minneapolis Council member pointed them to the Sustainable Resource Center, which helped weatherize the townhomes, replace old furnaces, and add insulation and other materials — without MPHA assistance.

Residents requested MPHA use its budget to make other repairs, but according to residents, the agency blocked requests for more than a year. MPHA ultimately gave in to pressure and the repairs were performed in 2018 without relocating residents.

Defend Glendale is now looking to support efforts to maintain and secure public housing at other housing sites it fears are now being targeted. It formed the Keep Public Housing Public Minneapolis Coalition, to address those ongoing concerns with the MPHA.

According to Yusuf, “In 2017, Russ said, ‘They are too organized at Glendale, let’s go after Elliot Twins.’ They said, ‘Let’s go somewhere else and maybe come back to Glendale. We realized that other brothers and sisters were under threat at Elliot Twins, we wanted to form, a solidarity so we organized with them.”

The MSR will continue to follow this affordable and public housing discussion as it unfolds.

This article originally appeared in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder.

Mel Reeves

Posts by Mel Reeves

Up Next

Family Act Key for Blacks, Coalition Says

Don't Miss

How will another $10 million impact affordable housing? A breakdown of the 2019 Housing Opportunity Fund plan

Mel Reeves

Click to comment

Education

As Progressive Democrats Celebrate ‘Blue Tsunami,’ Oakland Counts Victories

As national Democrats celebrate a significant shift in the midterm elections, local leaders in Oakland are tracking early results from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters. While Mayor Barbara Lee and several City Council incumbents have secured decisive victories, attention remains fixed on high-stakes school board contests. Progressive candidates currently face strong challenges from opponents backed by corporate funding and local political organizations. With many ballots still uncounted, the final composition of the board and several regional transit measures remain in the balance. Read more.

Published

7 days ago

November 6, 2026

Post News Group

By Ken Epstein

Concerns remain over school board races as ‘moderates’ lead progressives

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters has released the first round of election results, though many ballots remain uncounted and results are still incomplete.

Nationally, Democrats, liberals and progressives celebrated Tuesday evening as President Donald Trump was dealt a devastating blow in the midterm election. The Republican Party lost control of the Senate and the House as “Maga” candidates were swept away not just by a ‘blue wave,’ but a ‘blue tsunami.’

In Oakland, incumbent Mayor Barbara Lee, who served two years and ran for a full four-year term, won decisively.

A proposal backed by Lee, Measure EE, also won. The Charter amendment will create a strong mayor system of government while providing the City Council with new checks and balances on mayoral power.

District 2 Councilmember Charlene Wang is leading with 65.62% of the vote. Opponent Nate Adams trails with 34.38%.

District 4 Councilmember Janani Ramachandran, ran unopposed for reelection, receiving 14,029 votes.

District 6 Councilmember Kevin Jenkins bested opponent Nancy Sidebotham and District 2’s Charlene Wang also won reelection.

City Auditor Michael Houston is running unopposed for reelection and won 60,773 votes.

Progressive school board members, Jennifer Brouhard (D2) and Valarie Bachelor (D6), supported by teachers and school activists, face serious challenges from candidates backed by pro-corporate funders and the political organization, Empower Oakland.

Arielle Fleisher leads Brouhard 53.49% to 46.51%.

In District 6 with three contending candidates, Alexandra Williams leads with 38.06% of the vote. Incumbent Bachelor has 36.89%, and Leana Powell is trailing with 25.04%.

In District 4, incumbent Mike Hutchinson is narrowly leading a field of three candidates. He received 40.87% of the vote, while Kathryn Camp has 39.92%, and Sylvia Pfeiffer Williams has 19.21%.

In the races for AC Transit Board, Director Joel Young (Ward 3) leads with 53.11% of the vote, Sarah Syed (Ward 4) is ahead with 78.37% of the vote, and Murphy McCalley (Ward 5) leads with 63.07%.

Regional Transit Measure RTM, which would increase sales taxes in five Bay Area counties to shore up BART and other regional transit, was leading in five counties by a combined 62% of the vote.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Black History

HISTORY MADE: Keisha Lance Bottoms Becomes First Black Woman Elected Governor in American History

ATLANTA DAILY WORLD — History has been made in Georgia. Keisha Lance Bottoms, the former mayor of Atlanta, has been elected governor of Georgia, becoming the first Black woman in American history to win the highest executive office in any state.

Published

1 week ago

November 5, 2026

Post News Group

Keisha Lance Bottoms during her 2026 Democratic gubernatorial primary victory speech. Photo: Sikis2021 / Wikimedia Commons.

History has been made in Georgia. Keisha Lance Bottoms, the former mayor of Atlanta, has been elected governor of Georgia, becoming the first Black woman in American history to win the highest executive office in any state.

Bottoms’ victory over Republican businessman Rick Jackson represents a defining moment in American politics, breaking a barrier that has stood since the nation’s founding and placing Georgia at the center of a historic political transformation.

For generations, Black women have played a critical role in American democracy, organizing communities, leading movements, mobilizing voters and shaping public policy. Yet despite their contributions, no Black woman had ever been elected governor of a U.S. state.

Until now.

Bottoms’ election also makes her the first woman and first Black person elected governor of Georgia, a state whose political history has been deeply shaped by slavery, segregation, the civil rights movement and the long struggle for equal representation.

Her victory carries particular significance in a state where Black women have been among the most influential forces in voter registration, political organizing and Democratic electoral success.

A fifth-generation Georgian, Bottoms previously served as Atlanta’s 60th mayor from 2018 to 2022. During her administration, she led the city through the COVID-19 pandemic, nationwide protests over racial injustice and a period of significant economic and population growth.

Following her time as mayor, Bottoms served as a senior adviser in President Joe Biden’s administration before returning to Georgia politics to pursue the governorship.

Her campaign focused on expanding access to health care, strengthening public education, increasing wages and addressing the rising cost of living. She also advocated for expanding Medicaid, raising Georgia’s minimum wage to $15 an hour and increasing compensation for teachers and other public employees.

Bottoms faced Jackson, a wealthy health care executive who invested heavily in his campaign and positioned himself as a political outsider. The contest drew national attention as Democrats sought to reclaim the Georgia governor’s office after more than two decades of Republican control.

The historic nature of Bottoms’ victory extends well beyond party politics.

Georgia, once at the center of some of America’s most consequential civil rights battles, has now elected a Black woman to lead its state government. It is a milestone that reflects generations of political participation, organizing and leadership by Black Georgians.

For Atlanta, the moment is especially significant. A former mayor of the city that helped shape the modern civil rights movement will now lead the entire state.

Bottoms’ election opens a new chapter in Georgia’s political history and establishes a milestone that will be remembered far beyond the 2026 election.

For continuing election coverage and results, visit AtlantaDailyWorld.com/election26.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Black History

Five Hospitals Said No! Who Will Help Annette Henry Recover?

Annette Henry, a 67-year-old Oakland woman, is struggling to access essential medical care after a devastating stroke left her with a rare neuropathic pain syndrome. Despite medical documentation confirming her need for inpatient rehabilitation, five different Bay Area hospitals have denied her admission, often citing her inability to meet rigid therapy thresholds. Her family’s efforts to seek intervention from state and federal lawmakers have yielded no results, leaving Henry at home without a clear path to recovery. To see how these systemic failures are impacting her health, read more.

Published

1 week ago

November 3, 2026

Post News Group

By Tanya Dennis

A tangle of red tape and contradictions between health providers and Medicare rules have impeded an Oakland woman’s ability to recover from a stroke she had last year.

Her family – who are her caretakers – have reached out to various professionals and state and federal lawmakers for help to no avail.

At 67, Annette Henry needs inpatient stroke rehabilitation after a devastating stroke in May 2025. Since then, multiple Bay Area hospitals have denied it. She was accepted into a rehabilitation facility in June 2025 but discharged prematurely in July, in essentially the same condition.

Three hospitals where she was a patient pushed skilled nursing over inpatient rehabilitation. Two more declined referrals.

Now at home, Henry is caught in a system that measures her need for treatment against the limitations treatment should address.

Medical professionals have documented her need for a higher level of care.

In August 2025, a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) overturned Henry’s discharge from an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF).

The QIO’s independent physician reviewer found she had not received the “intensive therapy program outlined on admission,” according to the Aug. 30, 2025, determination letter. Yet the decision did not secure her readmission or guarantee continued rehabilitation.

Henry has central post-stroke pain, a rare neuropathic pain syndrome that can make movement and touch intensely painful. Her pain specialist recommended inpatient rehabilitation alongside pain management.

Nevertheless, facilities have cited her inability to tolerate three hours of daily therapy as a reason to deny inpatient rehabilitation.

That practice raises questions about Medicare coverage policy. In Hooper v. Sullivan, No. H-80-99 (D. Conn. 1989), the court recorded the parties’ agreement that denials based on numerical utilization screens, diagnostic screens, treatment norms, the “three-hour rule,” or other “rules of thumb” were not appropriate.

CMS subsequently cited Hooper in its Aug. 7, 2009, final rule (74 Fed. Reg. 39762, 39794). The policy is also addressed in the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Section 110, and CMS’s June 1 Review Choice Demonstration for IRF Services: Operational Guide.

These authorities underscore the need for individualized assessments rather than rigid numerical thresholds.

The central contradiction is stark: the pain and disability that make rehabilitation necessary have been cited as reasons to deny it. UCSF Stanyan’s April 7 discharge summary for Henry states that acute rehabilitation unit (ARU) placement was declined for “inability to tolerate three hours of therapy daily.” Without appropriate treatment, Henry risks further decline.

Her records document complications associated with prolonged immobility.

Orthopedics documented flexion contractures of the small and ring fingers on March 19.

Chest imaging on April 1 showed bibasilar dependent atelectasis, a condition involving reduced inflation of the lower portions of both lungs. These concerns can be examined through her medical records and photographs.

“What does a ‘not reasonable’ discharge look like?” her family asks. For them, it looks like an appeal decision recognizing a problem without ensuring a remedy: repeated referrals, denials and a patient still without the rehabilitation her treating professionals have recommended.

The family has sought help from the California Department of Public Health and the federal Office for Civil Rights to no avail. They contacted U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon in June 2025, while Henry was in rehabilitation; Senator Alex Padilla in May 2026; and Senator Adam Schiff in September 2026.

DeCuir says the family received no meaningful assistance and was redirected to the QIO or advised working with a social worker after Henry had already been discharged.

The consequences extend beyond rehabilitation. The family reports that Henry has struggled to attend in-person specialist or any appointments and needs in-person evaluation and treatment for complications, recommended evaluations, health screenings and preventive care.

Her mobility limitations have become barriers to broader medical care. Every office tells her their office is not set up to accommodate her. This has happened with specialty care, out-patient services, screenings and physical therapy.

Henry is a Black woman on Medicare, and her family believes her experience raises concerns about unequal access to intensive rehabilitation. Research has documented disparities in discharge to inpatient rehabilitation rather than skilled nursing, underscoring the importance of individualized review.

CMS, state regulators and healthcare providers should examine Henry’s records, assess her needs on their clinical merits and explain how the applicable coverage standards were applied, and whether they are being enforced.

Rehabilitation is not a reward for patients who can already tolerate treatment. It is care intended to help people recover function. Henry’s case asks whether a system designed to support recovery can leave a patient without a path to it.