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

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 13 – 19, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 13 – 19, 2026

Published

29 minutes ago

May 15, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

5 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”