2026-10-20 - Board of Representatives CHESS Committee

All right, it is 6.30. I will call to order the CHESS Committee and it is Tuesday, October 20th, 2026. It's 6.30 p.m. I believe it's Angie, over here at FO. Angie, would you mind taking the roll call

please? Sure. Representative Goldberg. I'm here. Representative Gross. Present. McEwen. I don't see him. Pollock. Present. Price. Present. Edgy. Syvestry. Present. Wollston. Present. Wears. Present.

And Yeager. All right, thank you very much. We have a forum. You're welcome. And do we have any ex-officio members tonight that I cannot see in the room? Representative Camparelli, Representative

Hughes. President Shaw is in the building. So, and Representative Hill is also there. Thank you. Oh, Weinberg is also on. Thank you very much. Okay. Representative Sylvester is also online. Sorry, an

interruption. Thank you, Representative Camparelli. Representative McEwen is also present and Tardy, apologies. Thanks. Okay. And we have a quorum. So, tonight we have our public hearing. I'll open

that up first. We have, did you sign up to see? Would you like to? Okay. So, what we'll do is it will be three minutes per person at two minutes and 30 seconds. We'll give a 30-second warning. We

would love to hear what you have to say. So, we will go through the list. If at the end of the video, it was not part of the list, let me know. I'll give you a moment to say a few to see. And we will

start off. Are you ready? I'm all set. I'm ready for it. Okay. Perfect. You could announce it. Ms. Sheila Williams Brown. Sorry, that's what I announced. If you're able to, the best spot for people

online to hear you is here, but you're welcome to stay there and speak loudly. My name is Sheila Williams Brown. I've been a resident of Stanford for over 45 years and then subsidized housing for over

20 years. I have found that my rent has increased because of the change in the way they look at BMRs. Before it was 30% of your household income, now it's 30% of the median income. Therefore, my rent

increased $400 per month last year. I find that unacceptable. I have been on the representative, I'm a former representative for the residents at the Charter Oak community and I've spoken with four of

the tenants at Charter Oaks, giving them their information. And I find that tenant input is very important for this committee to think about reducing the amount of tenants on their board is

unacceptable. Tenants are the ones who have their feet on the ground. They know what's going on. They know the problem. They are the ones who will give you where the people should be. We have the

mayor said there's 700 units coming online. I don't see them. We have people being moved out of BMRs to Bridgeport. Why are we moving people out of Stanford? Because there are no available housing.

It's unacceptable. This is the city that said it's the city that works for the people. Let it work for all of us. Thank you. All right, next. Next up is Ms. Cynthia Bowser. Good evening, everyone. My

name is Cynthia Bowser. I want to say good evening to all the board members present. Thank you for your service. So please don't think I'm rude or unappreciative of what you provide. But I've been a

lifelong resident of the West Side. The city of Stanford has segregated that community. It has decreased the opportunity for true home ownership. I think Stanford needs to look at how it has failed to

abide by the civil rights. What is now being planned to reduce the number of tenants on the affordable housing trust fund is unacceptable and undemocratic. And this is a city run by Democrats, not

Republicans. So I'm beginning to question what is the difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party when you're talking about people who are economically vulnerable. The city of

Stanford in my lifetime has moved to address the needs of those who are not economically vulnerable. When I talk to city of Stanford employees who were born in this city, they have had to relocate to

Monroe and elsewhere because they can't live here. You must reconsider this ordinance and make sure you have true Stanford, Connecticut residents. We have been overrun by developers ever since FD

Rich. This goes all the way back to urban redevelopment. This just needs to start now. I'm not blaming you. What I'm asking you to correct it because what you need to call this is the deeply

affordable and affordable house of trust fund designated to address the needs of the economically vulnerable as well as those folks who can pay $3,500 a month rent. I never saw rent like when the

smudge or the smite or whatever you call it, you introduced a whole new rental situation for folks. Give us a balanced opportunity. We want mutually beneficial housing opportunities for all residents

of this city. Look at I-95. The traffic coming out in New York now to exit 678 is intolerable. Who are you building for? They're running down Summer Street like you're going to a racetrack. You have

to look at the development and the land use bureau has to be held accountable. Thank you. Goodbye. Next up is Bonnie Kim Campbell. Thank you. Forgive me. I'm not going to stand because I have my

boyfriend over here. Good evening members of the chess. For y'all that don't know, that's community development, housing, education, and social services because otherwise people think we're here

actually playing chess. But we don't play chess in Stanford. We play checkers. And readings to the Board of Rep members, my colleagues, and the new ones that I'm just beginning to learn to know. My

name is Bonnie Kim Campbell. I'm a former representative on the 31st Stanford Board of Reps for District 5, the West Side. I served on this very committee, the part that was community development,

social services, CDBG, and housing. I am dedicated to community development and housing, affordable housing. I'm speaking tonight regarding item 32.024 and the proposed amendments to section 146,

article six of the code of ordinances governing Stanford affordable housing trust fund. And I speak in opposition. While I understand the city's objective to streamline administrative processes and

address timeliness standards, efficiency must never come at the expense of accountability, transparency, and public oversight. I urge this committee to carefully reconsider what you are about to do.

There are critical elements in this proposed ordinance. First, raising the threshold for the Board of Representative Oversight in the amount of from $100,000 to $1 million goes too far. A tenfold

increase significantly strips away legislative scrutiny. You're shooting your own self in the foot and not allowing yourself to be able to look over the monies of the taxpayers and the developer.

Public oversight is not an unnecessary administrative delay. It is a vital safeguard that ensures funds that they're spent equitably across all of our neighborhoods, especially those historically that

have been marginalized. The second thing is the people have to be represented. The people who are not stable in their rent, they have to be at the table. This ordinance removes people from the table

where decisions about their very lives is happening. Make it so that the single people who live here and the families who live here, that they can have a safe, stable place that they don't just live

it but they can call home. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie. Up next, Chair, we have Brittany Lawrence. Brittany Lawrence. Brittany, are you here? I'm online. I was going to be in person but it looks a

little packed. You have the floor. Thanks, everyone. I'm here standing with the rest of the folks that are in the room. My name is Brittany Lawrence and I am here in my capacity as an expert on a

couple of matters here, specifically affordable housing, finance, and development. I think as former Representative Campbell said that we need to ensure that public oversight is safeguarded because to

the very memo that was provided by Ms. Gordon, if we raise the threshold to a million dollars, every single item that has gone before the board will essentially just go to a developer whomever needs

the funding. I do want to laminate that the affordable housing trust fund funds are usually a gap filler. They're not going to stop the development of any large building because most honestly, they'll

probably be a sponsor loan. You probably won't get it in time to actually close the loan anyway. So I think it's very important that we keep that piece in place. The other part is tenant

representation. I think we kind of shot ourselves in the foot to impose that it has to be a tenant and affordable housing that's on this board because most of the tenants that I've ever worked with in

my 13 years in this industry, they can barely do their recertifications on time, let alone volunteer their time to essentially be able to help all of their neighbors. And I applaud you, Ms. Sheila,

for doing that because I've seen you at those meetings really advocating for the tenants at Charter Oak. But for the most part, you understand that all of those tenants have so much going on in life

that volunteering your time is a privilege that is not afforded to them. The other thing that I want to address is the fact that those meetings, since this board has been or commission has been in

place, have always been at a time when people are at work, 10 a.m. now and 4 p.m. before when the only tenant representation that was on that committee was on the committee. So who is it really for? I

just really think we should open it up to citizens of the city of Stanford, but more importantly, make sure it's equitable so that everyone can participate because we already have the board of

representatives that should be working on our best interest and they are or do have a seat at that table. However, we need an additional voice. So citizens without additional motives or something

should be at that table. And that's all I have to say about that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Brittany. Okay, next up is Brooke Romelakan. Brooke Romelakan, Brooke. She might be online. Is

that you, Brooke? I see a Miles Dannan with your hand raised. Sorry, that is my girlfriend. We were both testifying. She cannot be here for a reason. Okay, so we'll move on to you. Miles, do you have

the floor? Delightful. My name is Miles Damon, and I am here to oppose the proposed amendment, chess 32.024. And the reason I do so is quite simple, because it's a not exactly clever way of reducing

oversight, accountability and simple conscientiousness, where more of all three of those oversight, accountability and simple conscientiousness are direly needed. The red lined copy of the amendment

replaces, quote, residing in affordable housing projects, unquote, with, quote, residing in or has experienced managing slash developing affordable housing projects, unquote. And the question for

everybody is why do you think that Connecticut News 12 was all over the affordable housing project two blocks from where I understand that this meeting is currently being held right now? Do you know

who has, quote, experience managing or developing, unquote, affordable housing projects, the people who would be added to the board, if this amendment were to pass, we're talking a child being

hospitalized because of mold, a like a baby, I shouldn't even say child, a baby, right? We have mold, you have bugs, you have just simple maintenance. All of these things would be made more available

because the developers would be on the board deciding who would be getting money for new projects, right? Just oversight, accountability and simple conscientiousness are all reduced when they should

be strengthened. Those people also, as I understand, two blocks away who managed that, they're not, that that building wasn't the first to unionize, although it was quite, quite easy, as I understand

it, to unionize that building. How, how anybody could consciously support the proposed amendment, which lets somebody from that management company become part of the decision making process is

unimaginable to me and simply kind of disgraceful, disgraceful to a lot of the people in the room who I know, howdy guys, it's Miles. It is, it is for this reason that I oppose this amendment. Thank

you very much. Before we move on to the next speaker, I want to make a real quick announcement that more people have been showing up outside of the room. Our Republican caucus room is just on the

other side. If anybody would like to spill over there, I will always call on any other speakers. And again, at the end, if you're in the other room, come on over if you have not signed up, nothing

called. Next speaker. Next speaker is Gina Calabresi. Good evening. Thank you. I join in the outrage and the view that this is disgraceful that other speakers have used. It's the opposite of

democratic to have a housing trust fund board that does not include a resident of the affordable housing. And it's been said already, but it boggles my mind that this is an all democratic board and

you want to do something like this. You should hang your heads in shame seriously. And let's look at the origin of this. It's an email from the mayor's chief of staff implicating the head of the board

of representatives. So this is not something originating from the legislative body. This is coming from the executive on down. I've read some of the material saying that they can't find enough members

for the board. I don't think maybe you've tried looking hard enough because I can certainly take off a few names of eligible people immediately. And you want to put developers on the board. Isn't that

putting the fox in the hen house when there are so few developers here anyway, but they seem to be more connected to some of the newer members of the board who they themselves are some of the

gentrifiers of our city causing the congestion and changing the nature and pushing out people. Let's face it. In terms of potential conflicts of interest of an affordable housing resident, you know,

this is discussed in the papers and the legislative record, but there's no discussion of a conflict of interest of a developer. So yes, as you can see, it's really great to see everyone coming out

here and there is strong opposition. Take another look at this, including, you know, including the cutoff or the threshold amount for approval from the board of representatives. Thank you. And it's

tenants unions. I think we'll be able to find some tenants to be on this board now. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Burdell Johnson. Burdell Johnson. I am a staff of resident had been a tenant

and affordable housing for 38 years. And I've seen it, the scale slide down and I feel that we, the people that this directly impact should have a voice in the decisions made for us. These decisions

are being made by people that are not affected by the decisions they make. And there needs to be a voice that can be heard from the people that it affects. Thank you. Next up, we have Cindy Fowler.

I'm not sure how far, I'm sorry, my apologies. Good evening, everyone. My name is Cindy Fowler. I'm a resident of friendship house. As early as last, yesterday, we were told by our property management

that we would not have no heat in our building. To piggyback off that young man that just came on up on the screen, we are the building that became unionized. We did it in less than six weeks because

these are the things that we are dealing with. We're dealing with our Jamie Healy's that do not live on the property, that do not know what we are going through. We were told that we will have heat in

a couple of days. We were told that today it will be 70 degrees, so we will be okay. This was by our property manager. These are the things that we are dealing with in the community and dealing with

in friendship house alone. Like Jamie Healy, don't Jamie Healy have to live there where we live at. We have to live this nightmare. We have to deal with this. He's going to the boards on the boards at

the things that we are putting out there and asking him to sign. We're not asking for anything racist. We're just asking that we get mold dealt with. We're asking that they come in and they change the

piping in the building. We're asking for hot water not leaving us on a Friday evening. This is all we're asking for. We're not asking for anything crazy. We're asking that a mother don't wake up to

her son with roaches crawling on his face. These are the things we're asking for. We're not asking for anything out of the ordinary. We just want to live comfortable. We want to be comfortable, and

this is why we oppose this legislation. Thank you very much. Next up is Rose Burton. Rose Burton. Rose, you can stay seated if you're more comfortable. All right. Hello, everybody. My name is Rose

Burton. I've been a long time resident of Stanford, and I've seen it going downhill over the years, and I am a deeply, we need deeply, neatly, the affordable housing. Affordable housing will impact

everyone to live comfortably. I'm 65 years, I'll be 65 years old, and the last two years I have to move. This is going to be my fourth time moving because we're not afford the rent. The rent constant

goes up, up, up, and there's people that are coming in that has a lot of, that have a lot of need, but I don't have money. I'm on social security disability, and I am on my retirement, but we, it's

like the housing here is outrageous, and we do need, everyone needs to have a comfortable place to live, where they can call home, and I just want to say that everyone needs to live comfortably

according to their income. This is why I am a member of the Connecticut Tenet community. Tenets need a seat at the table. This committee should not remove tenants' representation from the oversight of

city funds. Tenets, like myself, and other members of our tenant union, we know that displacement means, we know that it means to be priced out, and that's what we're being priced out of our homes,

that it's not right, it's not fair, and so we all, even if the rich, the poor, everybody needs a place to live, and we're being priced out, and it doesn't feel good, and we also know that it is, it

feels like to be treated as left in by our landlords and our management companies. Our voices must be heard. This ordinance is moving us into the wrong direction. In a city we need more tenant voices,

not less. Thank you. Please vote on this ordinance. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. I see Representative Pelicchi is in the attendees. You might want to have somebody bump him up too. Thank you very

much, Angie. Yes, I did. Thanks. Thank you, Representative Camperelli. Next up, we have Sue Halpern. Sue. Hi, my name is Sue Halpern. I live down in South Bend, and I just want to say, you can see by

the number of people in this room and in the next room, how there are people that are interested, that would be interested in being on this commission, and I wonder how much outreach was brought to

the communities to see who would be interested to sitting on this board. I think it just hurts me, but anyway, my feeling is that two people should not be allowed to vote on expenditures for this

fund. The number of trustees should remain at seven with at least three members of the public who have lived experience residing in affordable housing. Having developers on a committee where there

could ultimately benefit as a conflict is a conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict can cause damage of trust, even if bad decisions aren't made. So please look at this board and

review what you're doing here, or leave it the way it is. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sue. Chair, I'm struggling with the next one. I think it's Rhonda. Yeah, I'm going to decline. Okay, we're

moving. Thank you. Next up is Jasmine, and I'm sorry, again, I'm on the last name spelling that escapes me. Jasmine? Floris. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jasmine Floris. I'm not a resident of Stanford,

but I'm the organizer of the Connecticut Senates Union at Helen, our friendship house unionized recently. And the reason I'm here today is not only to support them and what they're saying, taking

their power. So I am a tenant in housing, and you hate it. I've seen what happens, and I've called what it is, it's corruption. Taking away representation and letting people who have oppressed them,

because that is the word, you would not believe the conditions. They are living them unless you are in housing, okay? And you have people who are letting them live like this, the Jamie Healy's, okay,

of the world, would say that there is nothing wrong, but they do not have an obligation to these people, get more power over them. It's unacceptable. You cannot let this happen, because I've seen what

has happened. You don't know what it's like for it to be Christmas morning, you don't have any money, because your landlord is, sorry, your landlord has told you for the third time, it's charging you

$500, and now you can't get Christmas tickets for your four-year-old. That's what happens when this type of legislation happens. And every single person in this room is here because somebody here

voted for them. That's the power that you were given. And it's power that can take it away, because these people will deserve to be heard. And just because you will not listen to them does not mean

that the voices will go away. They will just go louder. Thank you. Next up is Carl Wise. Carl? Yeah, that's me. I'm gonna pass. I didn't realize I was putting my name to speak. Oh, I just decided. Got

it. Next up is Luke Melanakis. Luke? Hello, everybody. My name is Luke Melanakis. I'm also with the Connecticut Tenants Union. And I wanted to speak specifically to the argument that's being put

forward as to why this ordinance is on the table, which is that the seats were not able to be filled, and that's why they need to be taken away. I personally have worked with, I don't know how many,

hundreds of tenants in public housing, in my tech housing, in various forms of housing that gets classified as affordable, who yes, face many barriers to participate in the civic process, who may have

more difficulty with transportation, who may have more difficulty with showing up to daytime meetings, that's for sure. And for other folks, nighttime meetings might be more difficult. There are many

barriers, but it is absolutely possible for people who face those barriers to overcome them and participate in government. And it is the responsibility of those currently empowered in the

administration to reduce those barriers and double that outreach and build coalition so that more members of the community can participate in the democratic process. Connecticut Tenants Union is here

in Stanford now. We are happy to help put forward candidates who could sit on this board. Many of them might be in this room or not in this room. But I'm sure there are many other organizations in the

city who could partner with members of the administration who are tasked with filling these seats to help find really strong candidates and help them overcome any barriers that may be in place to

their participation. So I just want to really emphasize at the point that it is not a lack of desire out there amongst the tens of thousands of Stanford residents who have a stake in the important

housing trust fund. It's not a lack of desire. It's a lack of outreach. It's a lack of coalition building. It's a lack of building the relationships in the community that it takes to find those people

and give them the support they need to be in those seats. So that that is my main message. I also agree with the prior comments on how the threshold should not be raised from one hundred thousand to a

million. It should stay where it is. The total number of seats should not be reduced from seven to five. That's the same issue of it just takes outreach from the city to fill those seats. And lastly,

I could not emphasize more that a tenant who lives in affordable housing and a industry professional in affordable housing are in no way shape or form interchangeable. Every single day I'm working

with tenants who are living in these types of housing developments who are not being heard and yet they're the landlord or the management company has the platform to set the narrative and the hundreds

of residents who rent from them are totally ignored the little often in very racist and classist ways. We humanize just because they you know don't wear a certain outfit or speak in a certain way or

they are not taken seriously but that is unacceptable. It's not necessary. Thank you so my point is thank you. Thank you very much. Chair, next up we have simply Carmella. We can't hear you. I'm

Carmella Maguiso and I live in Stanford. My skin here is insane of development and I've moved from the lower level to the upper level and it's not really working for me the upper level and I told them

in the office that I would like to go to another apartment. Now they tell me that if I can afford the apartment that I would have to leave and now I'm facing with some black boats in my house which I

told them last week and they never came so I you know now the elevators don't work. One works. We have time works. They can't afford it so I don't know if they want us to fix it you know they don't

have to leave but you know where my time is up they're just not affordable housing so I would like to know where I find them. They're like 83 morning sleep. Thank you very much. Next up we have Dave

Adams. At this moment I know we have some people in the other room and we have I think two more or three more. So we have Dave Adams. If there's anyone after Dave Adams please come over to this side

of the room. It's a line up to speak and right now we have Dave Adams. Maureen there's someone ham is raised here. I'm not sure if they want to speak. After we're done I will go through hands that are

raised after people who are here in public but I think I want to go through the list here too. I might have missed some. Okay thank you. Dave Adams here at the floor. Thank you. Dave Adams you know

what present. I want to talk about the proposal chest 32.024 and what it actually means to the people of Stanford. Let's start with the money. Developers paying to this fund. Last year alone 8.5

million dollars came in. That's not taxpayer money. That's money developers paid instead of building affordable units on site right away. And here's the problem we are already seeing. In 2024 90

affordable on-site units were approved. In 2025 12 developers are choosing to write a check rather than providing urgently needed affordable units. The safeguards that in the current ordinance exist

for exactly this reason. To make sure that when developers opt out the money actually reaches the families who need it and that it's spent deliberately. Chest 32.024 strips those safeguards. It

removes the $100,000 cap on non-competitive requests. The 30 per review limit. The requirement that no money be dispersed without an approved affordable housing plan. And board of reps review for any

award. And that and it lets two out of three members present or present before approve a funding commitment. So now the charter the stamper charter code is not ambiguous. Any city expenditure or

contract over $100,000 falls outside of the annual annual budget process process must be approved by the board of finance and the board of representatives in that order. That's the world for every

department every agency every grant every person except for one etc. I believe the current affordable housing trust fund ordinance baits that rule in and any award over $100,000 comes to this board.

Chest 32.024 removes it under this new ordinance. The five-member board can commit over $100,000 or $500,000 or possibly even up to $1.3 million without a single vote of this body. That's not

streamlining. That's creating a loophole in the city's fiscal controls that doesn't exist anywhere else in Stanford's government. And the people who benefit from that loophole are the same developers

whose money funded. Finally, what this tells us about priorities. This administration has spent years expanding the fee and loop program, making it easier for developers to pay rather than build

onsite units dropped from 90 to 12 in a single year. And now at the same time, there's mentoring the very board that was supposed to make sure the money developers do pay actually get spent on real

housing for real residents. The direction is clear. Make opt-outs cheaper for developers and make it harder for the public to see where the money goes. I urge my colleagues to vote no or amend this

item to strengthen the existing safeguards and give more of a voice to affordable housing tenants as trustees. Thank you and have a wonderful evening. One thing, last thing I wanted to say was that

let's remind ourselves where this proposed legislation comes from. It didn't come from the public. It didn't come from this board. It came from the administration. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Dave. Next up is Richard Ostow. Yeah, that's me. Hello, everybody. My name is Richard Ostow. I'm the chair of the board of charter of communities if you're not familiar, which is the Stanford housing

department. If you're not familiar with chart broke, we have about over 1,500 units of affordable housing. We manage over 2,000 housing choice vouchers in the community. And we administer initial

eligibility for about 500 units, BMR units in the Stanford area. In addition, we have a non-profit subsidiary Ripwam corporation that carries out redevelopment and the development of new buildings.

Charter broke and Ripwam have asked for funding from the affordable housing trust fund to support the redevelopment of Oak Park, which is ongoing, and for security deposit assistance for new voucher

holders. I ask that you support the proposed ordinance, make some helpful changes to the affordable housing trust fund. It aligns the trust fund with other city boards and commissions, with more

public members, smaller flooring requirements, and alternate members. And this will allow the board to meet regularly and act on time sensitive development proposals. The proposal increases the

threshold for board reps approval for individual grants. And this will allow smaller projects to get started more quickly. And my understanding is that those projects in the past have been non-

controversial. The proposed ordinance also changes the requirement for public members to include not just residents of affordable housing, but also individuals who are involved in producing affordable

housing, which will allow individuals with valuable expertise to join the board and still allowing for advocates and residents of affordable housing to participate. Charter Oak and the CEO, Ben, over

here, are committed to encouraging residents to become involved. And so we will work to help find residents to participate on the board. But our experience is that sometimes the challenge that

residents may not have the time, skills, and interest to participate in such. The proposed ordinance expressly put us the trust fund to contribute to purchase of land. And that's often a barrier. And

so that will help us increasing the supplies for the housing. So we really appreciate the board's interest in making these affordable trust funds successful as a resource for affordable housing in

Stanford. And we encourage passage. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think there might be one more name, Emma S. Goings. Yes. Emma. Yes. Good evening, everyone. Good evening. I'm the president of the

Stanford NAACP. And we stand opposed with the measure as it stands today. I'm here to ask board members to vote no to this anyway. When you decide to allow two or three persons to decide how money is

spent, it's simply not fair. This change, what you want to change is what constitutes a quorum, five to three. What that really means to vote can constitute the majority. It doesn't even make sense.

But really, who should be benefiting? See, really, at the end of the day, does this align with the original purpose of the Stanford affordable housing trust fund? Might I remind you that this was

created in November of 2020. And the purpose was preserve existing affordable housing and to create new affordable rental and housing units in Stanford. The fund will support the goal of the Stanford

master plan for affordable housing. And what we do is do two things, preserve existing affordable units and also create new affordable. Again, I ask whose interest is here. I would suggest add more

residents. Don't take away because it is there to serve the people. So simply, if in fact the board wants to do what is right, the board can start with the ordinance as it stands in. Keep seven

trustees. Five of them should be residents of affordable housing. So include residents from tenant unions and tenant associations. Keep two officials. Keep four votes of the four board. A quorum is

found. And of course, four of your trustees have recusal and disclosure rules. And simply make sure when you have the meetings, working people can make them because they're important and input is

important. So again, I ask the board to learn inside. No, thank you. Thank you, Emma. So I do not have any more on the list at this time. People who are here in person, if there's anyone who is not

called on or if they'd like to speak, I'll give you a few seconds. Oh, okay. Can we have your name, please? Yeah. I'm across the hot spirit. We have been fresh your house for 24 years. I'm here to

stand in opposing of anything in the Benjamin that is going to come down the way it's going to intervene with the rights of the tenants. When there's someone that's living in the field that's

fighting, that knows what's going on and to turn around and have a change, whether you have management that comes in, that practically tell the tenants what they say go. Now, through the years, I have

fought. I've stood up to some of the tenants, some of the things that they were going through. I've had where they're coming in and even said that management are some Jamie Hilly, a different one said

there's nothing wrong with the deal. You see where that it came down with the age of the building to see where a crack came across in the building, whether they had the contractors working, that a

brick came in with cement that landed on my sister-in-law bed. Thank God she wasn't there and what it could have done. I'm even possibly could have crushed her head, but they're looking at the

situation of down through it of the time where I think that even God that it came to the point aware of the union land and thank God for all Luke and this your union and the tenants and all of us that

are able to stay during that time I had to go for a lawyer during the fight when you're walking into people's houses with the keys still happening now without even addressing them of a notice.

However, our inspection is going to be coming up on the 28th and not even giving them are okay or what they inspect. Having it well that was trying to shut my mouth and would say that we can say that

you did not pay and we can go and up on your section eight even had where it happened whether I went to the time I even get advised by to be advised from legal aid service back when they tried to say

I owe something and went into my files that would move and well that it was overrule. Thank you. We'll have you come up next he's at his last five seconds. So well what I'd like to say is is just to

look on the condition of this building with other staging right now when I ask the contractors they say with the crack and the foundation again but they see the corrosion of the pipes to see

everything that it is and now we're just asking for everybody to come to the table. Thank you very much. I want to give everyone an opportunity for time. My name is Leon. Leon. I'd like to speak about

the name of this affordable housing. Okay I suggest instead of changing the numbers aren't we looking at the voters the investors the rent going up $400 I mean let's look at these things first and

then deal with this but until we can get the tenants to feel comfortable in their apartments or homes we've never done accomplished anything so I suggest we do that and if I was part of this board I

would be embarrassed to have to listen to some of these complaints that have been gone on for years and not deal with it. Thank you. Is there anyone else in person who is not called upon? If not I

will move on to people who are online. Hold on one second. Yes. My name is Joyce Griffin and I have been a resident of Stanford for two years and I have seen this little town fighting and struggling

to grow and to speak is not doing a very good job. We have individuals sitting on our boards and I'm looking at this board and I don't think industry needs people to afford for help and so therefore

perhaps making some of these children make the most efficient. I looked at Stanford grow from single family housing to a multiple family to family housing into 20-story high rise building the one

right across the street from the government center $3,800 for a studio apartment now this does not just affect blacks, doesn't just affect Hispanics, it doesn't just affect East Indians or Native

Americans, it also affects young Caucasian males and females. Instead of decreasing the number of people that are going to sit on this board maybe you should increase it so that people can really have

a full understanding with a board filled with people who have a history here, who love the city, who know its history, are trying to make this city work. I always question that saying Stanford is a

city that works, works for whom? Not working for me. I am fortunate enough to have a roof over my head that I can afford but when I step outside and walk downstairs into the lobby I'm liable to see an

awful lot of people who don't have that right. Stanford has sold itself to the developers and the only people that have ever made money or have ever really enjoyed the fact that they might live in

Stanford are the developers. When you started in urban redevelopment as Cynthia mentioned the intent was to destabilize the city for some residents and you were successful. Why should somebody be born

in the city of Stanford? We forced to move to Bridgeport. We didn't like Bridgeport when everything was okay. So there's no need for it to move us up the line and we're going anywhere. We're going

into fast moving New York City, not Del Bridgeport. But that is where you say things. If it hasn't been fair you need to be fair. When you think about someone living here you need to have people

sitting on boards that can give you a true answer to what it's like to live here. Thank you. Thank you very much Joyce. I have more in person so everyone online you'll have your turn shortly. Hi my

name is Debbie Joanne. I live at Fonsai Gables. Been on the west side for a while. I watched never become a tale of two cities, us and them. I've been on so many meetings statewide meetings you named

it for decades and it has not changed. It's like we're speaking to the death in the blind. Like can you hear us? And I think the answer is no. It's obvious here. I worked in New York. I've been trying

to get a job in the city of Stanford for 35 years. Been in New York just that long. My rent went up an additional $1,700 over that. It is taking three of my paychecks just to pay rent. So I'm in this

window of I make too much money to get any kind of help but I don't make enough money to move where you got these developers here bringing in this rent. Don't make enough money to become a home home.

So what does the city of Stanford do for a person like me that's trying to get over here? Fill out so many applications. We said this a while ago. Make these companies hire some of us. So I have to

get up early in the morning. traffic is backed up. Traffic galore coming into Stanford. Traffic galore going out of Stanford. But where can you put a person like me? College grad did all of it. City

of Stanford is not working for me anymore. People in Jersey trying to hire me. People in the city trying to hire me. But Connecticut is not doing it for a lot of us. Tell of two cities. I know you

have to see this. There's just no way you can't. When you go online, we're looking for a rent. Whenever they're over there on Soundview, whatever is Harbor Harbor, it's $5,000, $6,000, $7,000,

$10,000. All they say you can't fill out an application that you have three times the rent. What? Three times? Not even two, but three. So guess what? Got my behind out of there because, guess what? I

can't afford three times the rent. So I'm stuck. So this is why you have a working homeless because you have a job, but you can't afford the rent. Three of my paychecks? Just to keep the roof over my

head? What can I do at one? Not much. Because then I have to buy gas just to get the Yorktown Heights up there. Way up there in the boons if anybody know where that's location. Stanford, you really

need to do better by your people. Stock is telling two cities we're already there. Gentrification on the west side. You got the people, they're kicking them out. Gentrification at rent. You caught in

the bed with the city of Stanford. Now, I'm in the bed deep. Let's leave that alone. I'm done. Thank you. Okay, hold on. We have one right here. Thank you. How you doing? Hello. Hi, my name is Jure

Eaton, born and raised in Stanford, went away for about 21 years, college, work, lived across the United States. And one of the most stressful things you can do is to move. And I've been working with

one person at St. John's who lived there for about 40 years. And it was interesting because she has income. And I took her to the Julius, which is a high rise here in Stanford. And they had a special

$2,300 for the first year. And then the second year, I mean, again, second year going on, it would be $2,900. But like this young lady just stated, three times the salary is the requirement. Although

she could do it, you know, her income was at $9,000 a month as a retired person. The biggest problem with Stanford started back under the damn alloy days. Back when our border prep stated for low

income housing, we tear one down, we replace it with one. However, that did not happen, because the builders could buy out of it. And they could buy out for less than one year of rent. And so if I'm a

builder, and I lose say $200, but I make 1000, I win, right? The biggest problem in Stanford, we have never done a disparity study in Stanford. You know, Stanford rests on its morals. We always talk

about diversities and how many languages are spoken in Stanford. But there's really only two languages. There's the money language, I'm okay. And I got it going on. I own a home. I'm secure. I got

money in stocks, Nvidia, right? You know, I did CBS, they're doing well too. But I'm a homeowner. My the way I came back home with the Coca Cola company, they paid $60,000 of closing costs for me 28

years ago, I cannot afford to live where I live now, if that hadn't happened for me, most of the people in this room will not have a corporate move. And so with the city of Stanford, I agree with

everyone in this room that stated, we should increase the number of people on the floor because it has to be representative of Stanford. And we're finding out that we have some people that really

don't understand economics. You know, I remember when I worked for coke, and they wanted to create something called the card, and it was with Citibank. And what they said it was, you know, like, hey,

you could use four transactions. But after that, Citibank would make $2 per transaction plus another 5%. 30 seconds. If you take the bus to work, sometimes you need that extra $5. We need more people

with compassion, and really understand the citizens of Stanford, all of them, the extremely wealthy, and also the people who were not as fortunate. So please do a disparity study before we continue

making all of these decisions, not understanding the real people in this room. Thank you. Would you anyone like to speak to? There's about four people outside. I don't know if they're all speaking

just real quick. I'm letting there's a few more online. So we'll keep continuing. Go ahead. My name is Sophia Sparaza. And I'm like, I'm 16. So I don't know much about what all you guys know. But I

still like to say what I've been feeling. My apartment that my parents pay for, I live in near Harbor Point. It's about $5,500 per month. And it used to be $3,500. And that increase happened in like

three years. And it's weighing my family down a lot, especially now that I'm a senior, I have to pay for college apps and everything. And it sucks. And then on top of that, we can't pay, we have to

pay for our own lunches at my school. And we, because they took away like the free lunches that we have to pay for. And that's another additional cost. And it's like, we have no say in how that can

change. And it's something that I noticed like within my parents, they've experienced the pressure of this massive amount of rent that all of a sudden went up. And I don't even think that's including

utilities. So I'm not including electricity, nothing. So it's like, that's just the baseline. And I mean, what's to say that like, it's not going to keep increasing. And we're not going to have any

say. And we're not going to be able to change that. And we've lived at that apartment my entire life. So we're not going to want to move. I mean, if we're forced to, we're going to have to, but it's

not an option that we're trying to consider. So I just kind of wanted to like, say that as someone who's younger, and the scene like, that I don't have a change, I can't make a difference, even though

I really want to. So yeah, thanks. Thank you so much. I'm happy to send a few, would you like to? I mean, if we don't have a chair, we're supposed to have chairs to the table for what it says. Okay,

there's one over there for you. Again, anyone who's here who would like to speak, please step forward before we move to online speakers. All right, speak now. Okay, we have one. Not very much, but

I've been in Stanford since 1969. I've seen the change in Stanford. Well, we cannot hear the speaker. I'm sorry. My heart breaks from what I see Stanford turned into when I was younger, working like

everybody. We said we've been to affordable housing, but you couldn't afford it. I was told by someone sitting in this room, said, "Stanford is changing. If you don't own anything, now you better buy

something." And I was able to afford something because when I was living there in Martin Luther King, they said to me, "Next year your rent is going up. We need all of your documents. You have to

produce your bank statements and all of this for a home loan." Now, I'm going to say it for people to house me. And I was like, "What I have is going to depend on what I can afford." And they were

going to go up on my rent. But at the same time, I said, "Okay, let me go." So I moved out and found something that I could afford at the time. But at the same time, I look at Stanford, how it's

really changing. It has changed. It has left the people behind who have really made Stanford. And it hurts because when you put all you had into Stanford and lived with, and you kept Stanford grow,

but Stanford don't give a damn about you anymore. And it hurts because you're trying all you can to help the people where you live and you go out and fight to help them, but Stanford still don't care

about what it is that you're doing. They say they do, but they really don't. No matter how much you try, they help change and better your city. And especially since COVID, since 2020, I've seen

Stanford turn its back on Stanford. That made Stanford. I mean, I have worked at Stanford. I have worked out of Stanford, but at the same time, and I'm still trying to work hard time as a retiree.

Like everybody say, the mortgage goes up, the rent goes up, the electric bill goes up, and it's hard for you to stay here. But it's gotten to the point where I really don't like Stanford anymore.

People come in here and moved in here, some New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and they've taken over Stanford. You can't drive down the streets. You almost get run over. They've gone down the wrong

way. The streets go down runway streets. They don't care. They've taken over Stanford. Please don't sign this kid. Don't do this to Stanford. Okay? I'll ask them. Okay? Because the more you turn your

pet back on the people that has made Stanford, it's wrong. And it's like, you don't care about us. Care about anybody sitting in this room, but anybody don't see us. Thank you. We have another person

in the public here who would like to speak. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Naomi Chapman Taylor. Sorry, can you speak up then? It's over here. My name is Naomi Chapman Taylor. I'm in the resident

of Stanford all my life, over 70 years. My family, the Whitakers, were people who worked on the urban redevelopment, bringing it from the whole south end. So I've seen Stanford go through a lot of

transformation, and I'm here tonight. My heart goes out to the tenants that are living the way they live in, in a town that's filthy rich. And we have this going on in our town. That's the sad part.

There's a lot, a lot of money here, and we should not have people sitting on the corners with cans, and people living in mold and children waking up to mice and all this in their rooms. So I am

opposed. Cynthia, I feel you. I remember when you came. So I'm asking the board to please, please, please do not let this go through. Please. And there's people here. Our current people take the night

about you're not being able to get people to work on this, to serve. There's people who, who tried to join the board and have not received responses. So we need to dig deep into the process to find

out why the communication that was supposed to go out to the public. Ask them for people to volunteer. There's a, there's a breakage in your system. Those people are not knowing there's spots that

they can go in and join and become, be heard. So I think we should not let it go through. Oppose it. But then on the other end, please look at the process on how you're looking to bring people onto

the board. I think you would have no issue and getting four or five residents who live in public housing to serve and be diligent to speak for their people, their neighbors and their friends. Thank

you very much. Is there anyone else outside of the room who would like to speak? No. Okay. Um, Angie, can you please help me in order of who has their hand raised pretty please. Um, I'm not there's

just the phone number I just allow them to speak, they had their hand raised. Hello, Angie. Yes. Hello. Hi. Can you hear me, we can hear you. Would you like to see your phone number. Yes, my name is

Francis Lane. I don't know. No, sometimes people remember me when I was living in Stanford for 65 years when I was living at post house. I had to retire due to my disability of blindness. So I made my

way over to the government center and I watched the ordinance that created the four by housing trust fund bill from the very beginning from beginning of 2019 all the way until it was finally passed in

November of 2020. I immediately applied, tried to figure out how to apply for two of those public trustee positions. I can tell you I know from experience that I was turned away. I had my application

resume thrown out. Mayor Martin didn't even know that I had sent it in to some people that I knew for the board representatives, I was able to get a interview, and I got on the board, and I don't

think we should be stereotyping people who live in affordable housing, as if everyone is uneducated, doesn't know what they're doing, you can barely get their paperwork done or whatever that is,

because I know I was on the top of things. I attended all of the board of commission meetings for charter oaks, so I was very well aware of how they run things. Yes, they have some issues, but I think

they ran a pretty good tight ship. Once I got on the trust fund board, I have to say I ran into a lot of resistance because I knew all that time from 2019 to November 2020 that position had been

gotten, tried to get rid of all the way along the way, but it ended up with two positions. And the fact that we wanted to have a quorum of five, so you wouldn't only have two or three people making

decisions about something that's so important. And I will speak to the guidelines, the reason why the $100,000 was put in there, because there needs to be more oversight, not less. We only have a

certain amount of money, and so we're only there to decide whether to leverage with other developers who bring in a package and show how they were going to do the financing, what other companies they

had involved, and we will look at that whole package and make those determinations. And so we need to keep $100,000 there. Otherwise, it's just going to be a free for all people just stepping in and

just, you know, putting in an application, hopefully was updated before I had to resign. That and also too, as far as the time, it's like I when we started the meetings are at 4430, then they got

moved to 630 to accommodate the person which doesn't need for the board representatives, and then, so if you could wrap it up. Oh, is it already three minutes. I'm just saying please 30 seconds so go

ahead a little bit longer. We do not make any changes, at least, there's people out there. I had finance background and everything before I had retired on disability. I know you can find people, if

you look for them, and I would definitely say more oversight and make sure you understand how those revenue streams are being handled because they were being mishandled when I was there. But I was

basically, you know, try to be, you know, shut down so I wouldn't say anything, but please do not have that those positions there if not more. Thank you. Okay. Angie, are there any other hands raised

and is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak before it close to public hearing. Yes, there's a tea Bradley. Thank you to Bradley, you have the floor. Good evening everyone. This is

turtle Bradley. Can you hear me. Yes, we can. Okay. Good evening to the chess committee. I'm a Stanford resident and I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. I'm several of the members that

are in attendance I've had the fortunate opportunity of getting to know during my tenure here in Stanford, and I do understand the city's concern that vacant trustees seats have contributed to meeting

cancellations and that the funding process can be slow. Those problems deserve solutions, but we should examine what safeguards this proposal would change the current ordinance reserves to trustee

positions for residents of affordable housing. Those ordinance removes that guarantee and instead gives priority to people with affordable housing lived experience or professional experience

developing or managing housing. Both of those perspectives can be valuable but let me highlight this they are not and I repeat not interchangeable before eliminating tenant seats. I really asked the

board to consider what others have echoed what recruitment efforts and scheduling accommodations have been tried one universal theme that I've heard time and time again, is that there hasn't been

follow through on the part of the city for people that have stepped up and answer the call of action financial oversight is equally as important. The city staff confirmed that only three trustees are

with only three trustees present two of those votes could approve a funding commitment and a BOR review would rise from awards from over 100,000 to awards of over 1 million, according to the city's

own figures, eight previous commitments tolling nearly $4 million would not have received the additional review under this proposed rule. I support timely investments in housing, but speed does not

eliminate the need for accountability. And this is that time. And this is that call of action. We need to know how conflicts of interest will be disclosed and managed how tenant voices will be

protected, and how spending will be measured against actual housing outcomes. For those reasons, I oppose this specific particular amendment as drafted and I asked the committee to vote no and

represent the very community that voted you in, I repeat that we the people voted you all in, and it is time for that for that board and others to present the community. I encourage a reviews, I

revise rather proposal that protects tenant representation, while addressing the city's operational concerns. I thank you very much for your time and I look forward to seeing how the votes come out.

Thank you very much. If there's no one else. I will give one. No, there's one. Robert okay. Thank you very much. Welcome Robert. Welcome back. Hi, thank you just want to check that you can hear me

before I continue. We can hear you. Thank you. So, for those that don't know me my name's Robert roquetta. I was a former city representative for the previous two boards board 30 and 31 the last eight

years. I live now same space in East Main Street in the east side and cove area. I actually, for many years, or more than half of the life of this Stanford affordable housing trust fund, I was a

committee member. I'm urging my, my former colleagues and some of the new representatives to vote no to this ordinance, or at least at some point, stop it to think of other ways and better ways to

address problems in that audience in that ordinance that are actually more important than the changes in front of you. One of the things I wanted to mention about the ordinance change and many people

mentioned tonight is one of the most important things is making sure that there's enough committee members, so that a vote to approve funding does not come down to the hands of two people, and most

likely just from the history of the board, and with respect. It's more than likely that those people are not elected officials, there was a reason why the amendment was made in an early formation of

this ordinance to increase it to the seven members, Francis Lane spoke a few minutes ago, and she was invaluable at this board, she asked the right questions. She knew what the processes were, and we

need to continue to have the community engagement to understand where and how these funds should be spent. One of the originators of who put together this this ordinance and drafted it, and it

eventually became law and became an ordinance actually stated, one of the purposes was was to get it out of where it used to get pro up the money that was appropriated was the zoning board. And this

is turning it right back into basically putting it back into the zoning board. If the goal is to add some, you know, some people that may be representing development because of their experience. I

also see a huge conflict of interest of that we need, we need people in the community communities there. I've seen in about eight years that I worked that I was on this board, so many people show up

and show their passion and I appreciate that and I applaud that. I hope it continues. But I really want you to really take a pause and decide what you're doing. This was the same board now that I

think possibly had reduced the fees, the permit fees that actually got more money as linkage fees to go to this trust fund. Another mistake to cost the residents of the city, the chance they can have

to get into affordable housing. I don't want to say much more. I thank you for your time. I hope you guys do the right thing, either send it back to committee to get some amendments in there, or just

straight up vote it down. Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you very much, Rob. Angie. Is there anyone else. No other hands are raised. No one else. I will close the public hearing, and I

greatly appreciate every single person who spoke are welcome to stay. Your voices are invaluable. Wait a minute. Angie is that someone who spoke. Yeah, they spoke before I'm not sure if I guess his

girlfriend was on let me know. Sorry, sorry I have, I have my girlfriend, she sent me the thing she wanted to say I don't think it comports with the rules to read it, but I would like to. Yeah,

unfortunately would have to be read by her, and I think you understandable, but you shared feel free to write it in to us we could also read it at another time. Thank you. I will be closing the public

hearing now I'm going to take a brief pause so if there's anyone who did want to leave. I'll take a moment, but you're welcome to say, and I'm going to actually take a five minute recess.