Why were these buildings not raised? It would seem that they were destroyed by over 50% (the threshold) of their assessed value. If I have to raise my home, the Housing Authority should do the same. I do not like to see my money wasted in an area that floods quite often - in fact this area is under water again tonight.

Good point. But then no one plays by the rules here unless they benefit them. Otherwise they're ignored. I'm not sure if low income housing applies to the BF + 2 ordinance, The ordinance targeted residential (to "increase the building envelope") and not commercial properties. If the BF + 2 ordinance applies to low income (HUD) housing then the City is breaking its own law. They could of course argue that the BF + 2 ordinance as not passed until after worlk began but my hunch is that those apartment units don't confomr to BF + 1 either (the prior standard). Why don't you raise that question at a council meeting? I would be curious what kind of response you get (if any.) They'll probably state that the damage did not exceeed 50% and let you try to prove otherwise. I had to laugh when HUD stated it would closely audit all expenditures. Being that nothing was put out to bid that could be problematic for the City.

I believe the cost for these homes was under 50 percent . The question was raised at a council meeting by someone before to meeting not at the official meeting but the answer was that they were. Under the 50 present bar .Still it is a question that needs to be asked at the meeting to be on the record.