What’s up with the E Lincoln HUD housing project

By:  Diane Benjamin

The project at 2220 E Lincoln was announced last May.  Tari Renner claimed he had known about the project for many months:  https://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/m-affordable-apartment-project-planned-for-bloomington-s-southeast-side/article_4c472d43-f960-54ed-a61e-16e8dc485048.html

2220 E Lincoln

If this project is a done deal, why is this sign still up on the property?


More questions, what is in this redacted email I received by FOIA?  Why are Crabill, Mathy, and Bray included?  It is in Mathy’s Ward, is the rest of the Council not in on what’s happening?

2220 E Lincolna

19 thoughts on “What’s up with the E Lincoln HUD housing project

  1. I “love” the redacted email. What’s the point of FOIA? The government is so transparent. NOT…

    1. That was my thought at first – Somebody was going a bit overboard with the redactinator.
      But if the email was reasonably concise and dealt only with a potential/pending real estate acquisition, that may have been appropriate. In theory, those redactions prevent the seller from reading an email describing maximum funds available, what property shortfalls are important or not, etc, and giving the seller an unfair advantage in negotiations. That doesn’t apply much here in BloNo where politicians tend to pay their friends top dollar, sometimes plus tax incentives, but that’s the legal reasoning.
      Can’t say for sure the above applies without seeing what was actually redacted, but I’m sure their excuse will be something along those lines.

  2. The term redacted is being used too often these days. This item is just plain unadulterated CENSORSHIP.
    “Many things are revealed to the humble that are hidden from the great”. Spoken during a presidential campaign speech in Bloomington, Illinois in 1952.

  3. Oh, Joy!

    More (taxpayer paid) “affordable housing” = ‘hoodrats from Chicago moving to McLean County.

    Tari’s political base expands again.

    We’re doomed!

  4. Let’s get beyond the redactions, the cronyism, and the corruption for just a moment and talk about the REAL issue:
    Per the linked article: “the maximum income for a family of four would be $54,960 to be eligible for the below-market-value rental units”. Why the Hell are taxpayers subsidizing families making 55K (whose spawn also get free or reduced price lunches, BTW) with cheap housing?


    1. Wow! $54,960 for a family of four is actually not to bad in the context of BN’s cost of living. (Obviously, that wouldn’t work in New York City.) There are plenty of decent homes on and around the $100,000 mark. (No shortage of supply on the market these days, that’s for sure.) Let’s face it, folks, these projects provide politicians with a constituency that votes big government while creating work for the unions.

      1. Obama’s equality was one of his dreams, unless of course it comes to his or Ninny Nanny’s neighborhood then the word NEVER pops up.

  5. Anyone wanna take bets on the new “luxury” apartments in the old SF HQ going Section 8 or HUD? When they can’t fill the units because there’s no demand, guess what will happen?

    1. No “going Section 8” about it. People “in the know” say that is the plan, all along.

      Deadbeat scum artificially inflating rental rates through taxpayer subsidies, while decent working folk who pay their own way struggle to make ends meet, often price out of housing. That and Democrat vote buying is all the Section 8 program is.

      “Cabrini Green in the Heartland”.

    2. When they can’t sell those new SF apartments, Tari will have to save the project by having the city purchase it and make his hotel out of it. His dream come true!

  6. On the subject of “housing” I find it funny that the Democrats are always harping about “global warming” and yet WHERE did OBAMA just buy a house?? Marthas Vineyard.. ONE of the FIRST places that would be impacted by rising sea levels in the course of “global warming” Either a “chicken little;” tactic or stupidity, you choose..

Leave a Reply