Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness And Immediate Assistance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocates press council to use reserves for immediate rental assistance and homelessness supports
Summary
During public comment at the May 5 committee meeting, multiple speakers urged the council to use part of the $20 million proposal for eviction prevention, security deposits, repair grants and shelters rather than largely developer‑focused subsidies; one speaker alleged an outstanding $5 million UDAG obligation to a local redevelopment group.
A steady stream of public commenters pressed the Wilmington City Council on May 5 to prioritize immediate assistance for renters and people experiencing homelessness rather than relying solely on developer subsidies to increase housing supply.
Multiple speakers recommended allocating parts of the proposed $20 million reserve transfer to programs that serve people now: a security deposit fund, emergency rental assistance, homeowner repair grants and shelter capacity. “If we took and created a security deposit fund…we could help 500 families right now,” Joe Connor told the council, urging a portion of the proceeds be directed to immediate needs.
Brandon Fletcher, who works with tenants across the city, criticized the plan’s current structure that channels subsidy to projects rather than to residents. “If public dollars are gonna be used for affordable housing, then why is this subsidy going to developers and not assisting residents who can rehabilitate the properties themselves?” Fletcher asked.
Speakers representing homelessness advocacy and direct service cited the crisis at Christina Park and called for more eviction prevention and rental assistance to keep people housed. “We need rental assistance done right,” said a public commenter, urging council to fund first‑and‑last month assistance and eviction prevention programs.
Dwight L. Davis, identifying himself as principal of a West Center City redevelopment group, also alleged that a quasi‑government corporation, UDAG, still owes his organization $5,000,000 and urged the mayor’s office and council to resolve that outstanding matter so community groups can pursue redevelopment. The administration did not address that specific debt allegation in the hearing record.
Advocates proposed alternatives for part of the reserve draw: targeted repair funds for homeowners, an escrow or housing trust under joint council/administration oversight, and a mix of short‑term emergency aid and long‑term production strategies.
Outcome: The public comment period underscored sharp community demand for immediate relief measures and stronger resident protections; councilmembers responded by proposing possible amendments to split funds between near‑term assistance and a housing trust, and asked the administration for more specific allocation details and lot maps.
