IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CINCINNATI DIVISION

METROPOLE TENANTS ASSOCIATION, 609 Walnut Street

Cincinnati OH,45202;

ROBERT W A VRE, 609 Walnut Street Cincinnati OH 45202;

AND

DERWIN TATE,

609 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OR 45202;

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHAUN DONOVAN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Housing and:

Urban Development, 451 ill Street S.W. Washington, DC 20410;

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,

451 ih Street S. W.

Washington, DC 20410;

CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, a municipal corporation,

801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202;

CINCINNATI CENTER CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (3CDC), : an Ohio Corporation, its SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES and AGENTS;

1014 Vine Street

Cincinnati OH 45202;

AZEOTROPIC LLC, an Ohio limited liability : corporation

clo KMK Service Corp - Agent, One East 4th Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OR 45202;

Case No.

----~-----------

Judge: _

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF

Defendants.

609 WALNUT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an:

Ohio limited partnership, c/o Andrew E. Showe

45 North 4th Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215;

SHOWE BUILDERS INC., an Ohio corporation,

c/o Andrew E. Showe

45 North 4th Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215;

THE MODEL GROUP, INC., an Ohio corporation,

c/o Qi Services, Inc.

150 East 4th Street, The Federal Reserve Bldg,:

Cincinnati, OH 45202;

AND

BRICKSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC, an Ohio limited liability corporation, c/o Qi Services Inc.,

ISO East 4th Street, The Federal Reserve Bldg,:

Cincinnati, OH 45202;

Come now Plaintiffs Metropole Tenants Association, Robert Wavre, and Derwin Tate,

who for their complaint against Defendants Shaun Donovan, in his capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), HUD, the City of Cincinnati, the

Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation ("3CDC"), Azeotropic LLC, 609 Walnut

Limited Partnership, Showe Builders Inc., The Model Group, Inc. and Brickstone Properties,

LLC, allege as follows:

I. OVERVIEW

1. This is a lawsuit to enforce the Constitutional and fair housing rights of the

residents living at The Metropole, 609 Walnut Street, Cincinnati Ohio - the last federally

subsidized, racially integrated, affordable housing opportunity in Cincinnati's Central Business

2

2. The Metropole tenants are threatened with permanent displacement from their

District ("Downtown") - said rights arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal housing law,

state and federal civil rights law, and state consumer protection law.

homes which will result in illegal and unconstitutional racial segregation and which has already

subjected Plaintiffs to illegal racial steering; unfair, deceptive and unconscionable practices; and

violations of their constitutional rights of assembly, due process, and equal protection; and the

protections granted them under federal affordable housing law and HUD regulations. Plaintiffs'

rights have been violated, and are threatened with continuing and irreversible violation, due to

3. The Metropole Apartments, located at 609 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, is a

the Defendants' actions and failures to act, as well as through Defendants' conspiracy with one

another to illegally transfer federal affordable housing stock to private, commercial development

interests.

racially integrated residential building of over 200 units of federally regulated, low-income

housing in downtown Cincinnati. It is in close proximity to an array of employment

opportunities, to the hub of the region's mass transit system, to a myriad of social service

providers, and is located in a neighborhood that is safe and increasingly prosperous.

4. Downtown Cincinnati is one of only three (out of 101) communities in Hamilton

County that, as of the 2000 Census, had been racially integrated for over 30 years. However, due

in substantial part to actions taken by, supported, funded and/or endorsed by the Defendants

named in this case, this racial integration is under threat. For approximately ten years, the

Defendants have actively and deliberately sought to dismantle, displace, or eliminate affordable

housing from Downtown Cincinnati, resulting in the displacement of African-American

3

r :

I

residents, and replaced said housing with housing that is overwhelmingly upscale and that is not racially integrated.

5. All of the Defendants in this case are bound by the Fair Housing Act, and the City

and BUD in particular are obligated by the Act to not only refrain from discrimination, but to "affirmatively further fair housing." Therefore, they are prohibited by the Act from taking any actions which have an adverse, disparate impact on the housing opportunities of racial minorities or other protected classes, and must not only refrain from actions which discriminate and/or perpetuate segregation, but must affirmatively act to cultivate racially integrated housing opportunities and neighborhoods.

6. HUD and the City have actively collaborated with 3CDC, Azeotropic, The Model

Group, Brickstone, and Showe Builders/609 Walnut Partnership to dismantle racial integration in the Central Business District by fostering residential and commercial development that Defendants knew or should have known would be racially exclusive, and which would have the forseeable effect of perpetuating racial segregation. Rather than affirmatively furthering fair housing, Defendants have all but destroyed an integrated community to create yet another racially homogenous and exclusive neighborhood in what is the eighth most segregated urban area in the United States.

7. It is in the context described above that the Defendants' efforts to displace the

residents of the MetropoIe must be considered. Defendants are attempting to displace the MetropoIe tenants in order to redevelop the building into an upscale "boutique" art hotel, and because the presence of low-income, racially diverse residents is inconsistent with Defendants' redevelopment vision of a racially homogenous, upscale Downtown Cincinnati. "You can't have

4

8. Defendants' efforts, individually and collectively, to displace the Metropole

I I

i

I

those types of places across the street from the Aronoff Center] ," stated a prominent

businessman who, on behalf of Defendant 3CDC, lobbied the Louisville-based 21 c Museum

Hotel chain to invest in redeveloping the Metropole. "It's like parking a Bentley on 14th and

Main2 and expecting the Bentley to still be there."

tenants to eliminate racially diverse, low-income persons from downtown, and to remove the

Metropole from federal affordable housing stock and convert it to an upscale, "boutique" hotel in

order to attract, in Defendants' view, a more desirable population to downtown, include, but are

not limited to: a) Showe Builders'/609 Walnut Partners' efforts to pre-pay its BUD subsidized

mortgage and sell the property; b) HUD's approval of the pre-payment and ownership transfer;

c) the City's support of $7.1 million in grants and loans toward the redevelopment; d)

3CDC's/Azeotropic's ongoing scheme to remove the building from the federal affordable

housing stock; and e) the Model Group's active collaboration in such efforts. These actions

violate the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., the National Housing Act, 12

U.S.C. § 1715z-15, the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; the

Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01, et seq.; the Ohio Landlord Tenant Act,

O.R.C. 5321.01, et seq.; Ohio civil rights law, R.C. 4112.01, et seq.; and give rise to common

law tort and contract claims including misrepresentation, tortious interference with contractual

relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and breach of covenants

of good faith and fair dealing.

'The Aronoff Center is Cincinnati's downtown performing arts center.

"The 14th and Main area is a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Cincinnati, and one of several neighborhoods to which Defendants have sought to relocate Metropole tenants.

5

6

II. PARTIES

9. The Metropole Tenants Association is an unincorporated tenant association

consisting of current residents of the Metropole Apartments.

10. Plaintiff Robert Wavre is a current tenant of the Metropole. He is disabled and is

a member of the Metropole Tenants Association Steering Committee.

11. Plaintiff Derwin Tate is a current tenant of the Metropole Apartments. He is

African-American and a member of the Metropole Tenant Association Steering Committee.

12. Defendant Shaun Donovan is Secretary of the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and is sued in his official capacity. He is responsible for ensuring that HUD complies with the Laws of the United States. Defendant HUD is the federal agency responsible for overseeing and enforcing housing policy in the United States. HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.

13. Defendant City of Cincinnati is a municipal corporation duly organized under the

laws of the State of Ohio. The City is represented by its mayor, vice mayor, and council of nine members who are elected at large by the voting public. The City also functions through numerous departments and committees, including a Planning Commission, a Department of Economic Development, and a Department of Neighborhood Services. The City's operations are controlled, directed, and overseen by a City Manager, whose employment is nominated by the Mayor and approved by City Council.

14. The City's current Mayor is Mark Mallory, first elected to office in November of

2005 and reelected in 2009. During his 2009 campaign, Mayor Mallory visited and stayed at the 2Ic Hotel in Louisville, whose owners have been selected to redevelop the Metropole into a

7

similar "boutique" hotel, and who have been awarded $12 million in grants and loans to do so by the Mayor and City Council. Upon information and belief, Mayor Mallory stayed at the 21 c Hotel on or about October 13,2009, where he booked two rooms at a rate of $76.46 and $44.86, respectively. The current per night rate at the 2Ic Hotel starts at $269.00 a night and is as high as $509.00 a night for the rooms referred to as "The Balconies." Additional room "packages" range from $282.00 to $795.60. Mayor Mallory's dramatically discounted stay at the 21 c Hotel was paid for with campaign funds.

15. Mayor Mark Mallory received over $6,000 in campaign contributions during his

2009 reelection campaign from five members of Defendant 3CDC's Board of Directors, from Steven Leeper, President and CEO of Defendant 3CDC and the incorporator of Defendant Azeotropic LLC, and from the Vice President for Development of Defendant The Model Group.

16. The City's current City Manager is Milton Dahoney, who was previously the City

Manager of Louisville, during the time when the Louisville 21 c Hotel was, upon information and belief, developed with financial assistance from that city.

17. Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation ("3CDC") is an Ohio not-for-

profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation with its headquarters located in Cincinnati. Its mission and strategic focus is to strengthen the core assets of downtown Cincinnati by revitalizing and connecting downtown's three unique neighborhoods: the Fountain Square District, the Central

Business District, and Over-the-Rhine.

3CDC's board of directors is comprised of

representatives of the city's most powerful and influential corporations, including The Procter & Gamble Company, The Kroger Company, Western & Southern Financial Group, Fifth Third Bank, Macy's, Inc., and several major accounting and law firms. 3CDC's president and chief operating officer is Stephen Leeper.

18. Azeotropic, LLC is an Ohio for-profit corporation whose president is also Stephen

Leeper. Upon information and belief, Azeotropic is affiliated with and/or a subsidiary corporation of 3CDC. Azeotropic purchased the Metropole Apartments on November 3, 2009 for a purchase price of $6.25 million.

19. 609 Walnut Partnership Ltd. is an Ohio for-profit corporation that owned the

Metropole Apartments prior to the sale of the property to Azeotropic, LLC. 609 Walnut Partnership Ltd. operated the building as affordable housing subject to a HUD-backed mortgage.

20. Showe Builders Inc. is an Ohio for-profit corporation that wholly owns 609

Walnut Partnership Ltd., the prior owner of the Metropole Apartments.

21. The Model Group, Inc. is an Ohio for-profit corporation that specializes in

property redevelopment and management, including urban revitalization. Upon information and belief, The Model Group, Inc. maintains a contractual relationship with Azeotropic/3CDC in which it is responsible for overseeing the effort to relocate the current residents of the Metropole Apartments out of their residences.

22. Brickstone Properties, LLC is an Ohio for-profit limited liability corporation that

serves as the property management division of The Model Group, Inc.

III. JURISDICTION

23. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 and 28 USC § 1343, which

authorize the federal courts to resolve federal constitutional questions and questions of federal law. This Court may exercise pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims on the basis

of28 USC § 1367.

24. This action is authorized against the federal Defendants by 5 USC § 702.

25. Declaratory relief is authorized pursuant to 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202.

8

9

26. To the extent that sovereign immunity is applicable to Defendant HUD, it has

been waived by virtue of 5 USC § 702 and 12 USC § 1702.

27. Venue is appropriate in this district and division pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b)

and (c), as the various acts which form the basis of this complaint occurred within the Cincinnati Division of the Southern District of Ohio.

IV. ST ATUTORY & LEGAL FRAMEWORK

28. Congress passed the National Housing Act of 1937 "to remedy ... the acute

shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of low income." Pursuant to that Act, Congress provided that HUD and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) would issue insurance to lenders who provided financing to enable the construction of multifamily rental housing projects. These insurance programs were created "[fjor the purpose of reducing rentals for lower income families" by authorizing HUD to offer interest reduction subsidies to the owners of "rental housing designed for occupancy by lower income families ... through payments to morgagees holding mortgages meeting the special requirements specified in this section." 12 USC § 1715z-1 (a). Operation of insured projects is intensively and comprehensively regulated by HUD, pursuant to Regulatory Agreements with the owners as well as federal statutes and regulations, in order to ensure achievement of national housing goals.

29. Among the mortgage insurance programs authorized by the National Housing Act

is the Section 236 program, codified at 12 USC § 1715z-1. The Metropole Apartments mortgage was a Section 236 HUD mortgage.

30. By 1983, Congress had become concerned that multifamily rental projects might

be lost as a low-income housing resource whenever an owner prepaid its mortgage and thereby avoided the affordability restrictions imposed by HUD. Congress therefore added Section 250(a)

the Secretary shall not accept an offer to prepay the mortgage ... unless

to the National Housing Act, which was passed as part of the Housing and Urban-Renewal

Recovery Act of 1983 and codified at 12 USC § 1715z-15. The provision imposes strict

limitations on when HUD may approve an owner's request to pre-pay its mortgage:

(1) the Secretary has determined that such project is no longer meeting a need for rental housing for lower income families in the area;

(2) the Secretary (A) has determined that the tenants have been notified of the owner's request for approval of a prepayment; (B) has provided the tenants with an opportunity to comment on the owner's request; and (C) has taken such comments into consideration; and

(3) the Secretary has ensured that there is a plan for providing relocation assistance for adequate, comparable housing for any lower income tenant who will be displaced as a result of the prepayment and withdrawal of the project from the program.

(Emphasis added).

31. Section 1715z-15 ("Section 250") applies to all multifamily rental housing

projects, including Section 236 projects such as the Metropole Apartments.

32. In addition to the specific requirements of Section 250, pursuant to the U.S.

Housing Act, 12 USC § 170lt, HUD's highest priority in administering its programs must be to

meet the needs of those "with incomes so low that they could not otherwise decently house

themselves. "

33. Furthermore, Congress has declared that national housing policy has "not directed

sufficient attention and resources to preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods," and

that if the national housing goal of a decent home and suitable living environment for every

10

11

family is to be achieved, "a greater effort must be made to encourage the preservation of existing

housing and neighborhoods." 42 U.S.C. § 1441a.

34. In pursuing these national housing objectives, HUD must exercise its powers,

duties and functions "in such a manner as will encourage and assist ... the development of well-

planned, integrated, residential neighborhoods." 42 U.S.C. § 1441(5)(4) (Emphasis added).

35. Most critically, HUD and the City of Cincinnati, by virtue of its certifications to

HUD in exchange for federal funds, are required by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d)

and 3608(e)(5), to administer all of their programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively

furthers fair housing. This provision imposes a duty to ensure that all HUD and City programs

and activities further fair housing and racial integration, and prohibits HUD and the City from

pursuing any program or activity which hinders fair housing and/or which perpetuates racial

segregation. This "affirmatively furthering" obligation minimally requires HUD and the City to

study the racial and socio-economic effects of its housing decions before proceeding with a

particular course of action.

36. To certify to HUD that one affirmatively furthers fair housing, when in fact one

does not, likely constitutes a violation of the False Claims Act, 31 USC §§ 3729 et seq.'

37. Private owners of properties which receive HUD rental subsidies, such as

Housing Assistance Payment ("HAP") contracts or of properties with HUD subsidized

mortgages such as the Section 236 program, also incur a duty to affirmatively further fair

housing. Consequently, for all the events at issue in this case, Defendants 609 Walnut

Partnership Ltd., Showe Builders Inc., Azeotropic LLC/3CDC, and The Model Group were,

and/or continue to be, under a duty to affirmatively further fair housing, and have violated this

"See United States of America ex rei. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, New York, No. 06cv2860 (S.D.N.Y.).

duty through their attempts to remove the Metropole from the federal affordable housing stock and to displace the Metropole tenants out of the Central Business District into segregated neighborhoods and housing.

38. The purpose of the Fair Housing Act was to prevent ghettoization and promote

"open, integrated residential housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregation, in ghettos, of racial groups whose lack of opportunities the Act was designed to combat." Otero v. New York City Housing Auth., 484 F.2d 1122, 1134 (2d Cif. 1973). See also Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U.S. 205, 211. Thus, Congress has made it clear that HUD, local governments receiving federal funds, and private actors subject to the Fair Housing Act must promote housing which furthers racial integration, not gentrification in the name of urban revitalization that perpetuates segregation.

39. The Fair Housing Act prohibits both overtly discriminatory acts and policies, as

well as policies which perpetuate racial segregation and/or have an adverse, disparate impact on members ofa protected class, including racial minorities and persons who are disabled.

40. Ohio civil rights law prohibits actions with regard to housing and real estate

transactions which segregate racial minorities. See O.R.C. §§ 4112.01, 4112.02.

41. Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. § 1345.01 et seq., applies to

landlords, property managers, and providers of relocation services and prohibts any act or practice by landlords, property managers, or services providers which is "unfair," "deceptive," or

"unconscionable. "

12

13

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

42. The Metropole Apartments is a 230-unit, Project Based Section Eight building in

downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. It has been operated as federally subsidized, affordable housing continuously since at least 1971.

43. Until very recently, the owner of the property was 609 Walnut Partnership

Limited, and the building was managed by Showe Builders, Inc. Upon information and belief, Showe Builders, Inc. is the sole owner of 609 Walnut Limited Partnership.

44. On May 24, 1988, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership executed a mortgage with

HUD. The mortgage is a HUD subsidized mortgage pursuant to Section 236 of the National Housing Act, and is thus subject to the restrictions on prepayment in Section 250 of the National Housing Act.

45. As a condition of securing the mortgage, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership was

required by HUD to enter into a "Regulatory Agreement for Limited Distribution Mortgagors Under Section 236 of the National Housing Act, As Amended" (hereinafter "Regulatory Agreement," attached as Exhibit A).

46. Pursuant to the Regulatory Agreement, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership agreed,

inter alia, to "limit admission to the project to those whose incomes do not exceed the limits prescribed by" HUD and agreed that "preference for occupancy shall be given to those displaced from an urban renewal area, or as a result of government action."

47. 609 Walnut Limited Partnership further agreed that it "shall not without the prior

written approval" of HUD "convey, transfer, or encumber any of the mortgaged property, or permit the conveyance, transfer or encumbrance of such property," that it shall not "remodel, add to, reconstruct, or demolish any part of' the property or "permit the use of the dwelling

accommodations of the project for any purpose except the use which was originally intended" without HUD's prior written approval. Additionally, the Regulatory Agreement requires that 609 Walnut Limited Partnership comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any federal state or local law prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, creed, sex or nationality, including Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act) and its implementing regulations promulgated by HUD.

48. The Regulatory Agreement refers to 609 Walnut Limited Partnership as the

property's "owners," and for the purposes of the Agreement's terms, conditions, and restrictions defines "owners" as including 609 Walnut Limited Partnership's "successors and assigns."

49. The Regulatory Agreement further states that "owners warrant that they have not,

and will not, execute any other agreement with provisions contradictory of, or in opposition to, the provisions hereof, and that, in any event, the requirements of this Agreement are paramount and controlling as to the rights and obligations set forth and supersede any other requirements in conflict therewith."

50. Furthermore, the Regulatory Agreement specifies that the mortgage may only be

prepaid "subject to the approval of the Secretary" of HUD, "in order to ensure that the Project will continue to operate in a manner that will provide rental housing on terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants as the terms required by the Section 236 program." Additionally, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership agreed "to execute any and all new and renewal Section 8 Housing Assistance Contracts as and if offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development."

14

IS

51. Pursuant to Section 250 of the National Housing Act (codified at 12 USC §

1715z-15), prepayment by an owner of a Section 236 morgage can only be approved by HUD where the project no longer fulfills a need for rental housing for low-income families.

52. As of 2009 when the property was sold, the Metropole Apartments did and to this

day continue to meet a critical need for low-income housing in downtown Cincinnati. This fact was recognized by the City in its 2000 Consolidated Plan, which acknowledged the need for affordable housing in the city's urban core.

53. On April 7, 2009, some Metropole residents received a letter from Defendant

Showe Builders, Inc. titled "Notice ofIntent to Prepay" (attached as Exhibit B). The letter states that the prepayment of the mortgage would occur on September 4, 2009 and that the prepayment "could result in an increase in rent." The notice gave no indication that the Metropole would be sold and that the tenants would be forced out of their homes.

54. On May 26, 2009 the owners of the Metropole, 609 Walnut Limited

Partnership/Showe Builders Inc., sold the property to Azeotropic LLC13CDC, conveying ownership by executing a Limited Warranty Deed (attached as Exhibit C), the first clause of which states "609 Walnut Limited Partnership ... the Grantor, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid to Grantee, whose tax mailing address is c/o Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation, 1014 Vine Street, Suite 1420, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN AND SELL to the Grantee" the 609 Walnut Street premises. (Emphasis added).

55. The deed was signed by Andrew E. Showe, Vice President of Showe Builders,

Inc., identified as the "Managing General Partner" of 609 Walnut Limited Partnership, and is notarized and dated May 26, 2009.

56. Upon information and belief, Showe Builders Inc. is the sole partner and owner of

609 Walnut Limited Partnership, and the entities are controlled, directed and managed by the same individuals, including Andrew E. Showe.

57. Two months after the Metropole property was sold to Azeotropic/3CDC, on luly

27, 2009, some Metropole residents received a letter from Showe Builders Inc. which stated:

"Many of you have heard a rumor that the Metropole is about to be sold and that you will lose your home and possibly become homeless. To alleviate the fear and worry this false information may be causing, let us give you the facts." (Emphasis added) (attached as Exhibit D).

58. Despite the fact that two months earlier Showe/609 Walnut Limited Partnership

had conveyed title of the Metropole property to Azeotropic LLC/3CDC ("the Grantor ... does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN AND SELL to the Grantee ... "), Showe stated in its luly 27, 2009 letter that "We are negotiating for the possible sale of the building."

59. The letter stated further that if a sale were approved, "you will receive at least a

one year notice, in writing."

60. In response to this luly 27, 2009 letter, the Metropole Tenants Association was

formed.

61. In September 2009, the Metropole Tenants Association learned from housing

advocates, including Affordable Housing Advocates, the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, and the local media, that 3CDC/Azeotropic, the buyer, did not plan to maintain their home as affordable housing. 3CDC had announced plans to the public to make residents move in order to redevelop their horne into a boutique hotel.

62. Jeff Ruby, who owns a restaurant near the Metropole property on Walnut Street,

and who had, on behalf of Defendants 3CDC and the City of Cincinnati, lobbied the the 2Ic

16

17

Museum Hotel owners in Louisville to partner with 3CDC in developing the Metropole into a similar hotel, remarked to the Cincinnati Business Courier: "You can't have those types of places across the street from the Aronoff Center. It's like parking a Bentley on 14th and Main and expecting the Bentley to still be there."

63. Defendant 609 Walnut Limited Partnership/Showe Builders Inc. and/or

3CDC/Azeotropic have ignored and violated Plaintiffs' rights to notice under the National Housing Act, including a requirement of a full year notice before it might be able to terminate the rental subsidy contract. Some Metropole residents were notified of the "intent" to prepay the mortgage, but they did not receive notice that 609 Walnut Limited Partnership/Showe Builders were seeking approval to do so from HUD. 609 Walnut Limited Partnership/Showe Builders and/or their agents misled residents about the meaning of the request to prepay. In fact, residents did not know that prepayment of the mortgage was intended to force them out of their homes. They were only told that it "could result in an increase in rent."

64. 3CDC/Azeotropic and 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders kept the sale

of the property secret. The tenants received no notice of the sale until after the property was sold. 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders had assured the tenants that if the building were sold, tenants would have at least one year notice, in writing, before they might be asked to relocate. 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders and 3CDCI Azeotropic were in constant communication and planning, while the tenants, who have the most at stake, were intentionally kept in the dark.

65. Upon information and belief, HUD approved 609 Walnut Limited

Partership/Showe Builders' request to prepay the Section 236 mortgage, despite the fact that the

Metropole continues to meet a pressing need for low-income housing, and despite not providing Metropole tenants with an opportunity to comment on the prepayment request.

66. Upon information and belief, before approving prepayment of the Metropole

mortgage, HUD did not conduct an analysis of whether such a prepayment would have an adverse, disparate impact on racial minorities or people with disabilities, whether it would perpetuate racial segregation, or would otherwise hinder fair housing opportunities.

67. In October of 2009, HUD's Office of Multifamily Housing considered requests to

approve the sale of the Metropole Apartments, transfer of the Housing- Assistance contract, and a relocation plan for over two hundred current residents of the Metropole Apartments. Upon information and belief, HUD approved the sale, the transfer of the Housing Assistance Contract and a relocation plan without providing an opportunity for a hearing or resident input, and did not conduct an analysis of whether granting such approvals would have an adverse disparate impact on racial minorities or people with disabilities, did not consider whether such approvals would perpetuate racial segregation, or would otherwise hinder fair housing opportunities.

6S. The residents' leases remain in effect, and the HUD contract providing rental

subsidies remains in effect.

69. Prior to November 3, 2009, neither Azeotropic nor 3CDC communicated to the

Metropole tenants that it was buying the building or that it planned to force them out of their homes.

70. Robert Wavre, Derwin Tate, and the other members of the Metropole Tenants

Association want to remain in their homes at the Metropole. The Metropole is a racially integrated housing project, with approximately 60% African-American residents. Additionally, a majority of the tenants are elderly and disabled. Some have lived in the Metropole for 20 years,

18

and a number of residents signed 12-month leases as recently as October 2009. The Metropole provides them with a racially integrated housing opportunity, with access to their jobs and other employment opportunities and to every bus route in the transit system, which is especially important for elderly and disabled residents.

71. The proposal to tum the residents' homes into an upscale boutique hotel will have

the effect of, and constitutes an attempt to, displace African-Americans and people with disabilities from Downtown Cincinnati and into racially segregated housing.

72. Cincinnati's Central Business District has been one of the few racially and

economically integrated communities in the City of Cincinnati. Converting the Metropole residents' home into a hotel will destroy a scarce resource of racially integrated housing, and remove from the affordable housing stock one of the last affordable apartment buildings in Downtown, exacerbating the critical shortage of affordable housing in a neighborhood whose racial diversity is under threat due to the destruction, over the past decade or so, of Downtown affordable housing and its replacement with upscale, racially homogenous housing, through the actions of the Defendants herein.

73. On November 3, 2009, the Metropole Tenant Association sent a petition to HUD

and the City of Cincinnati stating their concerns and requesting an investigation of the sale of the building and displacement of over 200 tenants. Additional signatures were sent to HUD by the Metropole Tenants Association on November 6, 2009. (Petition and Signatures, attached as Exhibit E).

74.

On November 3, 2009, 3CDC/Azeotropic LLC sent a notice to some of the

Metropole residents stating that it was opting out of the Housing Assistance Contract with HUD. (Notice, attached as Exhibit F).

19

75. On November 3, The Model Group, Inc., acting as agents for 3CDC/Azeotripic

LLC, announced meetings with tenants scheduled for November 4, 2009 at 8:30am and for November 5, 2009 at 4:00pm. Tenants were informed that the 3CDC entity that owns the Metropole is Azeotropic Partners, LLC, and that the entity responsible for managing the building would be Brickstone Properties, an entity owned and controlled by The Model Group, Inc.

76. During the meeting on November 4th, Cincinnati Police officers were in the lobby

of the building and the meeting r00111. At the request of the Metropole Tenants Association, two advocates from the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless sought to attend the meeting as representatives and advisors on behalf of the Metropole Tenants Association.

77. When one of the Metropole residents attempted to sign the two advocates into the

meeting as the residents' and Tenants Association's guests, Cincinnati Police officers stopped the advocates at the entrance of the building. The building owner, 3 CDCI Azeotropic, had requested police presence to keep housing advocates out of the meeting. The advocates from the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless were barred from entering the building and thus from attending the meeting and representing and advocating on behalf of the Metropole Tenants Association at the meeting.

78. At this meeting, 3CDCI Azeotropic and their agents announced a plan to relocate

the tenants. When tenants attempted to challenge the plan, they were berated by

3CDC/Azeotropic's agents. The Metropole residents were pressured to commit to relocating immediately, and were pressured to sign up for relocation appointments without legal counsel. 3CDCI Azeotropic and its agents pressured the residents to waive their rights under their current leases and/or to additional relocation assistance.

20

79. At a second meeting scheduled by 3CDC/Azeotropic for Thursday, November 5,

2009 at 4:00pm, 3CDC/ Azeotropic and its agents again told the tenants, their attorneys, and lowincome housing advocates that only tenants were permitted to attend the meeting. 3CDC/Azeotropic requested Cincinnati Police officers to order the tenants' legal representatives and advocates out of the meeting. Only when the tenants insisted on their rights to organize themeselves and have legal counsel present did 3CDCI Azeotropic relent to the presence of tenants' representatives.

80. 3CDC/ Azeotropic violated the rights of Metropole tenants to organize, to freely

associate with one another and with their advisors, to be represented by legal counsel, and to be assisted by housing advocates. 3CDC/ Azeotropic requested the use of police presence to increase its efforts to intimidate the tenants, to suppress their efforts to have representatives at the meeting, and to force them to agree to the terms of the relocation plan.

81. The conduct of 3CDC/Azeotropic and/or its agents, described above in

paragraphs 72 through 77, constitutes "unfair," "deceptive" and "unconscionable" acts and practices pursuant to the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

82. The conduct of 3CDC/Azeotropic and/or its agents, described above In

paragraphs 72 through 77, constitutes illegal coercion, intimidation and/or interference with the enjoyment and exercise of fair housing rights by Plaintiffs in violation ofO.R.C. 4112.02(H)(12) and in violation of the Ohio criminal code, O.R.C. 2927.03.

83. The actions taken by 3CDC/Azeotropic and it agents described above in

paragraphs 72 through 77 were part of a conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of Plaintiffs, in violation of 42 USC § 1985.

21

22

84. The actions and conduct of the Cincinnati Police described above in paragraphs

72 through 77 constitute efforts under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional rights of association and assembly, as guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and in so far as such actions interfered with Plaintiffs' exercise of their fair housing rights, entail a violation of 42 USC § 3617, O.R.C. 41 12.02(H)12 and O.R.C. 2927.03, for which the City of Cincinnati is liable pursuant to 42 USC § 1983.

85. 3CDC/Azeotropic has entered into a contract with The Model Group, Inc. to

manage the relocation of the Metropole residents. The units to which 3CDC/ Azeotropic and its agent, The Model Group are attempting to transfer Plaintiffs are all located in low-income, predominantly African-American neighborhoods.

86. The relocation efforts of 3CDC/ Azeotropic and The Model Group are an effort to

displace Plaintiffs from integrated living opportunities in Downtown Cincinnati and to hand over control of the Metropole HAP contract revenues to The Model Group by steering the tenants to units in Model Group's properties, which are all located in segregated communities.

87. 3CDC/Azeotropic have contracted with The Model Group to manage the

Metropole building, through Brickstone Properties, which is the property management division of The Model Group.

88. 3CDCI Azeotropic are now subsidized housing landlords. In spite of the current

tenants' leases and the Housing Assistance Payment contract in effect for the building, 3 CDC/ Azeotropic and its property manager, The Model Group/Brickstone, have been pressuring and continue to pressure current residents to immediately move out of their units.

89. The Model Group/Brickstone and/or their agents have engaged in attempts to

harrass and intimidate residents remaining at the Metropole, including demanding access to

90. A particular officer who frequently accompanied management personel to

residents' apartments without prior notice and with the presence of a Cincinnati Police officer,

for routine matters of maintenace or management.

tenants' units verbally accosted Plaintiff Robert Wavre and subjected him to verbal abuse in

response to Mr. Wavre's public display of a sign protesting the displacement of the Metropole

residents ..

91. Upon information and belief, this same officer accosted Plaintiff Robert Wavre

while both were riding a bus, screaming repeatedly at him that she would "knock his block off."

92. Plaintiff Robert Wavre has been a public leader of the Metropole Tenants

Association and has overtly advocated on behalf of the residents to current and previous

management of the Metropole on numerous occassions. The verbal confrontations and abuse by

this Cincinnati Police officer were deliberate attempts to intimidate and suppress Mr. Wavre's

leadership and advocacy on behalf of his fellow tenants, and constitute a violation of his

protected First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

VI. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

A. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS DONOVAN AND HUn

CLAIM ONE: Violation of the National Housing Act & the Administrative Procedures Act

93. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

foregoing paragraphs.

94. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership and/or Showe Builders Incorporated was

the mortgagor of a Section 236 mortgage on the property known as The Metropole Apartments,

609 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio and pursuant to both federal law and the Regulatory

23

24

Agreement referenced above, was required to obtain approval from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in order to prepay the mortgage.

95. Secretary Donovan and HUD approved the request by 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership/Showe Builders.

96. The Metropole Apartments are still needed to meet a need for rental housing for

lower income families in the Downtown Cincinnati area.

97. Upon information and belief, Secretary Donovan and HUD either ignored the fact

that a continuing need exists for rental housing in Downtown Cincinnati, or failed to make any such determination as to whether such a need exists. In either case, Secretary Donovan and HUD violated the requirements of the National Housing Act, 12 USC § 171Sz-1S(a)(l).

98. The Metropole tenants were never notified that 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership/Showe Builders had requested approval from HUD to prepay the mortgage.

99. Upon information and belief, Secretary Donovan and HUD either ignored the fact

that the tenants of the Metropole were never notified of the owner's request to HUD for approval to prepay the mortgage, or failed to determine whether the tenants were notified of said request, in violation of 12 USC § 171Sz-1S(a)(2)(A).

100. Secretary Donovan and HUD failed to provide the Metropole tenants with an opportunity to comment on the owner's request to prepay the mortgage, in violation of 12 USC §

171Sz-1S(a)(2)(B).

101. Because it did not allow the Metropole tenants the opportunity to comment on the request to prepay, HUD and Secretary Donovan approved the prepayment without considering any tenant comments, in violation of 12 USC § 171Sz-1S(a)(2)(C).

25

102. Secretary Donovan and HUD approved the prepayment request despite the fact that there is no relocation plan in place which provides assistance for adequate, comparable integrated housing for the tenants who will be displaced as a result of the prepayment, in violation of 12 USC § 1715z-15(a)(3) and 42 U.S_c. §§ 3601 et seq.

103. All the tenants of The Metropole are "low income" as defined by the National Housing Act.

104. Defendant Donovan's and Defendant HUD's failure to comply with the requirements of Section 250(a) of the National Housing Act (12 USC 1715z-l5) in approving the prepayment request of Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders on a project that continues to meet a need for rental housing for low income families, when tenants did not receive notice of such request, were not provided opportunity to comment on the request, and where there was no relocation plan to provide adequate, comparable integrated housing for the displaced tenants is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law; is contrary to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights and privileges; and was in excess of the statutory limitations placed on HUD regarding such preapprovals.

105. Defendant Donovan's and Defendant HUD's approval of 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership's request to prepay the mortgage constituted a failure to act consistently with the national housing goals set forth in 42 USC § 1441, 12 USC § 170lt and 42 USC § 1441a, contributing to the ongoing housing crises for lower income families, and is an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law.

106. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be severely and irreparably harmed, with no adequate remedy at law, by HUD's failure to comply with Section 250(a) and its failure to comply with the national housing goals by its approval of the mortgage prepayment.

107. HUD knew, or should have known, that 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders requested to prepay the mortgage in order to lift the low income housing requirements from the Metropole property, enabling them to complete a deal to sell the property to 3CDC/Azeotropic, which intended to displace the residents into racially segregated communities.

108. As a result of these violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC § 706.

CLAIM TWO: Violation of Fair Housing Act & Administrative Procedures Act

109. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

110. Pursuant to 42 USC §3608( e), HUD is obligated to affirmatively further fair housing in the administration of its programs and decision making. Accordingly, it must act to foster and protect integrated neighborhoods and housing opportunities, and must refrain from actions which result in the perpetuation of racial segregation andlor which have a disparate adverse impact on racial minorities and/or persons with disabilities.

111. Defendant Donovan and Defendant HUD approved the request by Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders to prepay its HUD subsidized, Section 236 mortgage and are allowing the current Metropole owners, Defendants 3CDC/Azeotropic, to opt out of their Housing Assistance Payments contract, in disregard of HUD's duty to affirmatively further fair housing and in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC §§ 3601 et seq.

112. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders entered into a Regulatory Agreement with HUD in connection with the Section 236 mortgage. This Regulatory Agreement prohibits prepayment of the mortgage without HUD's approval, so that "the Project will continue to operate in a manner that will provide rental housing on terms at least as advantageous to

26

existing and future tenants as the terms required by the Section 236 program under which the original mortgage was made or insured." Furthermore, by the terms of the Regulatory Agreement, 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders "for itself and its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees to execute any and all new and renewal Section 8 Housing Assistance Contracts as and if offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development."

113. Therefore, by the terms of the Regulatory Agreement, any approval by HUD of prepayment of the mortgage is contingent on the property continuing to operate as affordable housing, and where no such assurance exists, approval by HUD of prepayment is improper.

114. By the terms of the Regulatory Agreement, the tenants of the Metropole are intended third party beneficiaries of the Agreement.

115. By approving the prepayment of the Section 236 mortgage, HUD eliminated the affordable housing protections on the property even though the intent of the owner was to sell the property to a buyer whose purpose is to displace the residents and convert the building to 1l01laffordable housing uses.

116. In doing so, HUD violated the Regulatory Agreement's requirement that prepayments are conditioned on continued use of the property as housing for low income persons, to the benefit of "the existing and future tenants."

117. HUD has thus allowed a scenario to develop which put the new owner, Defendant 3CDC/Azeotropic, in position to opt out of the HAP contract and is permitting them to do so. By the terms of the Regulatory Agreement, HUD could have rejected the prepayment request of Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders, offering instead a new or renewal HAP contract, which 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe would have been obliged to accept - thereby preserving the Metropole as integrated, affordable housing.

27

28

118. Instead, HUD approved the prepayment, allowing the property to be transferred to 3CDCI Azeotrpic, whose intent is to displace the tenants and convert the property into a boutique hotel. HUD is thereby illegally perpetuating segregation, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, by allowing a racially integrated building in an increasingly and exclusively white neighborhood to be removed from the federal affordable housing stock and displacing its residents into segregated housing and neighborhoods.

119. Approximately sixty percent (60%) of the Metropole residents are AfricanAmerican, and a majority of the residents are disabled as defined by 42 USC §§ 3602(h). HUD's actions described in the foregoing paragraphs have a disparate, adverse impact on AfricanAmerican renters in the area, who are disproportionately lower-income than white renters; and on the disabled, who are disproportionately lower income and in need of subsidized, centrally located housing than are non-disabled households.

120. Specifically, HUD and Secretary Donovan either failed to conduct an analysis of whether mortgage prepayment and/or canceling the HAP contract would hinder fair housing opportunities, including whether prepayment would result in the perpetuation of segregation, and/or result in adverse, disparate impacts on racial minorities and persons with disabilities; or HUD and Donovan approved prepayment and HAP cancellation despite knowing its actions would have such consequences.

121. Furthermore, HUD has either approved, or failed to scrutinize, a relocation plan being implemented by Defendants 3CDCI Azeotropic and The Model Group/Brickstone, which is perpetuating racial segregation by attempting to steer Metropole residents from their existing, racially integrated housing into racially homogenous and segregated neighborhoods and apartment buildings.

29

122. Accordingly, HUD has violated its duty to affirmatively further fair housing, and instead has perpetuated racial segregation and subjected African-American and disabled residents of the Metropole to adverse, disparate impacts by permitting prepayment of the Metropole mortgage and the subsequent transfer of ownership, cancellation of the HAP contract, and implementation of a discriminatory relocation plan in violation of USC §§ 3604, 3605, and

3608(e).

123. Plaintiffs have been injured by HUD's actions, and will be further injured as a result ofHUD's actions absent intervention by this Court.

124. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC § 706.

CLAIM THREE: Breach of Contract

125. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

126. HUD entered into a Regulatory Agreement with 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership/Showe Builders Inc. on May 24th, 1988.

127. The Metropole tenants are intended third party beneficiaries of said Regulatory Agreement.

128. By the terms of the Regulatory Agreement, HUD may only grant approval for prepayment of the Section 236 HUD mortgage on the Metropole property if the property will continue to be operated as affordable housing, and where no such assurance exists, approval by HUD of prepayment is improper.

129. HUD approved the request to prepay by the owner 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership/Showe Builders with no assurance that the property would continue to be operated

30

for affordable housing and despite the fact that the owner intended to sell the property to a buyer

whose purpose is to displace the residents.

130. HUD thus breached the Regulatory Agreement's requirement that prepayments

are conditioned, to the benefit of "the existing and future residents," on continued use of the

property as housing for low-income persons.

] 31. As a direct result of HUD's breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages and will be

displaced from their homes into segregated housing and communities absent intervention by this

Court.

CLAIM FOUR: 42 USC 1983 Equal Protection Violation

132. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

foregoing paragraph.

133. Secretary Donovan and HUD violated Plaintiffs' right to equal protection

guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by financing the

redevelopment of the Metropole Apartments for the invidious purpose of relocating Plaintiffs out

of downtown Cincinnati as a result of Plaintiffs' minority and disability status.

B. CLAIMS AGAINST 609 WALNUT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SHOWE BUILDERS, INC.

CLAIM FIVE: Violation of Federal Fair Housing Act

134. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

foregoing paragraphs.

135. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders, Inc. were the owners of

the Metropole Apartments, had entered into a Regulatory Agreement pursuant to a Section 236

mortgage, and a Housing Assistance Payment contract with HUD. As such, 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership/Showe Builders had an affirmative duty to prevent discrimination, pursuant to HUD regulations and Executive Order 11063.

136. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders prepaid the mortgage on the Metropole property in order to eliminate the affordable housing restrictions imposed by the mortgage, so they could sell the property to 3CDCI Azeotropic, which they knew or should have known intended to convert the property to a boutique hotel and displace the residents from their integrated housing at the Metropole to segregated housing and neighborhoods.

137. By eliminating the affordable housing restrictions through prepayment, and selling the Metropole to 3CDC/Azeotropic, 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC §§ 3604 and 3605, by taking actions which will lead to the perpetuation of racial segregation and which will have a disparate, adverse impact on racial minorities and persons with disabilities. Because they were subject to affirmative obligations to prevent discrimination, 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership's/Showe Builders' actions had no legitimate business justifications.

CLAIM SIX: Violation of State Fair Housing Law

138. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

139. Under Ohio civil rights law, "discriminate" includes segregate or separate.

G.R.C.4112.01(7).

140. By prepaying the Section 236 mortgage on the Metropole property and then selling the property to 3CDCI Azeotropic, and thereby eliminating a racially integrated, affordable housing resource and displacing tenants into segregated housing and neighborhoods, Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders have committed unlawful discrimination

31

by perpetuating racial segregation and subjecting African-Americans and disabled persons to adverse, disparate impacts, in violation of Ohio fair housing law, O.R.C. 4112.02(H)(l), 4112(H)( 4), 4112(H)(5), 41 12(H)(l 0), 4112(H)(l5), and 4112(H)(21).

CLAIM SEVEN: Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act Violations

141. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

142. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders was the owner and landlord of The Metropole Apartments and are "suppliers" as defined by the Ohio Consumper Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01 As landlord and lessor to Plaintiffs, Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders engaged in consumer transactions by leasing residential apartments to Plaintiffs.

143. Plaintiffs are "consumers," as defined by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01. Plaintiffs are tenants of the Metropole Apartments and leased said apartments from Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders.

144. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders knowingly sent false and/or deceptive notices to some tenants of the Metropole on April 7, 2009 and May 26, 2009 and deliberately or recklessly withheld material information from the Metropole tenants regarding its dealings with HUD and 3CDCI Azeotropic and its plans to sell the property to 3 CDC/ Azeotropic.

145. In doing so, Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders engaged in unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices, including by knowingly asserting to the Metropole residents in a July 27, 2009 letter that the Metropole had not been sold and that "it is

32

business as usual at the Metropole" when in fact title to the property had been conveyed to 3CDCI Azeotropic on May 26, 2009.

146. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders knew that the Metropole tenants were likely to rely to their detriment on these deceptive and/or false statments by failing to challenge Defendant's efforts to displace them from their homes, and the tenants who received the notices did in fact rely to their detriment.

147. Said acts by Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders were committed while Defendant was in a landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiffs, and constitute unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts in violation of O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03. Defendant's acts have caused, and absent intervention by this Court will continue to cause Plaintiffs to suffer economic and non-economic damages.

CLAIM EIGHT: Breach of Contract

148. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

149. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders entered into a Regulatory Agreement with HUD on May 24, 1988.

150. Plaintiffs are third party beneficiaries of said Regulatory Agreement.

151. Defendant prepaid the mortgage on the Metropole property without ensuring that the property would continue to be used as affordable housing, and sought to prepay the mortgage with the intention of selling the property to a buyer whose purpose Defendant knew or should have known is to displace the residents.

152. Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd. Partnership/Showe Builders thus breached the Regulatory Agreement's requirement that prepayments are conditioned, to the benefit of "the

33

34

existing and future residents," on continued use of the property as housing for low-income persons.

153. As a direct result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiffs have suffered damages and will be displaced from their homes into segregated housing and communities absent intervention by this Court.

CLAIM NINE: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

154. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

155. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant 609 Walnut Ltd.

Partnership's/Showe Builders' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress and mental anguish.

156. Defendant acted intentionally or in reckless disregard and knew or should have known that its actions would result in serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

157. Defendant's actions were committed with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights and interests and caused Plaintiffs substantial harm, therefore Defendant is liable for punitive damages.

C. CLAIMS AGAINST 3CDC & AZEOTROPIC LLC

CLAIM TEN: Violation of Federal Fair Housing Act

158. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

159. Defendant 3CDCI Azeotropic LLC are owners of HUD subsidized rental housing and therefore have an affirmative duty to prevent discrimination, pursuant to HUD regulations and Executive Order 11063.

160. Defendant 3CDCI Azeotropic purchased the Metropole property in 2009 with the intent and purpose of displacing the tenants from the building and converting the building to a boutique hotel, thereby permanently removing the Metropole from the federal affordable housing stock, eliminating one of the last affordable housing resources from the Central Business District, and destroying one of the few integrated affordable housing projects in Downtown or, for that matter, anywhere in Hamilton County.

161. Defendant 3CDC has engaged in a deliberate and planned effort to eliminate low

. income housing from Downtown Cincinnati and replace it with upscale, predominantly white residents, or simply with non-residential, commercial land uses. As a direct and proximate result of 3CDC's efforts, the racially integrated status of Downtown's Central Business District is under severe and imminent threat. In effect, 3CDC has been actively engaged in redeveloping a once integrated Central Business District into an upscale, segregated white community.

162. 3CDC/Azeotropic's purchase of the Metropole and their ongoing efforts to displace the tenants into segregated housing and neighborhoods is the latest episode of what is an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimatory development activities by 3CDC.

163. 3CDC/Azeotropic's attempt to convert the Metropole into a boutique hotel by displacing the current tenants and removing the building from the federal affordable housing stock will perpetrate racial segregation, and will have an adverse, disparate impact on AfricanAmericans and persons with disabilities, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3605.

164. 3CDC/Azeotropic is attempting to employ a relocation plan which is practicing racial steering by attempting to relocate Metropole tenants to racially segregated neighborhoods and/or buildings. 3CDC/Azeotropic has conspired with its property management company,

35

Defendant The Model Group Inc. and its subsidiary, Defendant Brickstone Properties, to execute this relocation plan. With little or no exception, the possible relocation sites shown to Metropole tenants have been in racially segregated neighborhoods and/or racially segregated buildings.

165. Upon information and belief, when tenants inquired about the possibility of relocating to Mt. Lookout, a predominantly white community on Cincinnati's East Side, relocation personnel laughed out loud and told the tenants there were no rentals there.

166. 3CDC/ Azeotropic is liable for the discriminatory acts taken on its behalf by its agents, The Model Group/Brickstone, said acts constituting illegal racial steering and the perpetuation of racial segregation, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3605.

167. 3CDCIAzeotropic's conduct, on November 4, 2009 and November 5, 2009, alleged above in paragraphs 72 through 77, were an illegal attempt to interfere, coerce and intimidate the Metropole residents with regard to the exercise of their fair housing rights, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.c. § 3617.

168. Because 3CDCIAzeotropic is currently an owner of HUD subsidized housing, it has an affirmative obligation to prevent discrimination, and its actions at issue in this lawsuit have no- legitimate business justification.

CLAIM ELEVEN: Violation of State Fair Housing Law

169. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

170. Under Ohio civil rights law, "discriminate" includes segregate or separate. O.R.C. 4112.01(7).

36

37

171. Through the actions alleged above 3CDCI Azeotropic have committed unlawful discrimination, including the perpetuation of racial segregation, racial steering, subjecting African-Americans and disabled persons to adverse, disparate impacts in violation of Ohio fair

housing law, O.R.C. 4112.02(H)(l), 4112.02(H)(4), 4112.02(H)(5), 4112.02(H)(lO), 4112(H)(15), and 4112.02(H)(21).

172. 3CDCIAzeotropic's conduct, on November 4, 2009 and November 5, 2009, alleged above in paragraphs 72 through 77, were an illegal attempt to interfere, coerce and intimidate the Metropole residents with regard to the exercise of their fair housing rights, in violation of Ohio civil rights law, O.R.e. 41 1 2.02(H)(l 2) and in violation of the Ohio criminal code, 0.R.e. 2927.03.

CLAIM TWELVE: Consumer Sales Practices Violations

173. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

174. Defendant 3CDC/Azeotropic are the owners, landlords and lessors of The Metropole Apartments since May 26, 2009 and are "suppliers" as defined by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, 0.R.e. 1345.01. As landlord and lessor to Plaintiffs, Defendant 3CDCI Azeotropic are engaged in consumer transactions by leasing residential apartments, and by providing for "relocation services" to Plaintiffs.

175. Plaintiffs are "consumers," as defined by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01. Plaintiffs are tenants of the Metropole Apartments and are leasing apartment units from Defendant 3CDC/ Azeotropic.

38

176. Defendant 3CDCIAzeotropic knowingly kept secret from the Metropole tenants that it had become the owner of the building on May 26, 2009, which was unfair, deceptive and unconscionable.

177. Plaintiffs relied to their detriment on their belief that ownership of the building had not been sold.

178. On November 4, 2009 and November 5, 2009 Defendant 3CDCIAzeotropic engaged in conduct, described above in paragraphs 72 through 77, which was "unfair," "deceptive," and "unconscionable," including conspiring with the City of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Police Department to bar the Metropole tenants from having legal counsel and advocates present at two meetings in the Metropole, and attempted to force tenants to agree to terms of a relocation plan contrary to their interests, rights and desires, without the presence of legal counsel, in violation of O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

179. Defendant 3CDC/Azeotropic has conspired and continues to conspire with The Model Group to engage in "unfair," "deceptive," andlor "unconscionable" practices towards Plaintiffs in the provision of "relocation" services, and continues to commit such practices.

180. The unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable practices referred to in the foregoing paragraph include, but are not limited to the fact that: 3CDCI Azeotropic promised in announcing its purchase of the Metropole that its "relocation program will insure that tenants monthly rent will not increase and all related moving expenses will be covered," that each tenant will receive "one-on-one" assistance and that 3CDC will "insure that the relocation plan ... ultimately results in improved, higher quality living conditions." Despite this promise, Plaintiffs have only been shown, with little exception, relocation options that are in segregated neighborhoods and buildings, often in high crime areas with poor connections to public transportation, job

opportunities or support services. In addition, 3CDC and/or its agents have contradicted these initial promises, stating that only some moving costs would be covered, by attempting to move tenants into units where their rents would increase, and by asserting on its website that "there is no guarantee of one-on-one assistance or that tenants will relocate to better quality housing." Such deceptive statements violate the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

181. Furthermore, 3CDCI Azeotropic is conspiring with The Model Group/Brickstone to steer the Metropole tenants into buildings which Model Group/Brickstone either owns or manages in order to obtain the tenants' federal housing subsidy. Defendants are thus engaging in a scheme of self-dealing designed to financially benefit the Model Group/Brickstone that is contrary to the needs, interests, rights and desires of the Metropole tenants and which is unfair, deceptive and unconscionable, in violation of O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

182. As a direct and proximate result of 3CDC/Azeotropic's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered economic and non-economic damages, and will continue to suffer such damages absent the intervention of this Court.

CLAIM THIRTEEN: 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy

183. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

184. Defendant 3CDCIAzeotropic's conduct described above in paragraphs 72 through 77 were part of a conspiracy with the City of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati Police Department to interfere with the Plaintiffs' civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

185. Defendant 3CDC/Azeotropic further conspired to interfere with Plaintiffs civil rights with Defendant The Model Group/Brickstone by hiring The Model Group/Brickstone to

39

186. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

manage the Metropole and execute a relocation plan which by design would displace the

Metropole tenants from their homes and steer them into segregated neighborhoods, to the

financial benefit of The Model Group/Brickstone, in violation of 42 U .S.C. § 1985.

CLAIM FOURTEEN: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

foregoing paragraphs.

187. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant 3CDCIAzeotropic's actions,

Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress and mental anquish.

188. Defendant acted intentionally or in reckless disregard and knew or should have

known that its actions would result in serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

189. Defendant's actions were committed with conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights

and interests and caused Plaintiffs substantial harm, therefore Defendant is liable for punitive

damages.

D. CLAIMS AGAINST THE MODEL GROUP INC. & BRICKSTONE PROPERTIES

CLAIM FOURTEEN: Violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act

190. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

foregoing paragraphs.

191. Defendant The Model Group/Brickstone Properties own and manage HUD

subsidized housing and therefore have an affirmative duty to prevent discrimination, pursuant to

HUD regulations and Executive Order 11063.

192. Defendant The Model Group/Brickstone entered into a contract with

3CDCIAzeotropic to manage the Metropole Apartments and design and implement a relocation

plan in order to remove the tenants from their homes in the Metropole. In entering into In so

40

doing, The Model Group/Brickstone are collaborating and/or conspmng with 3CDC/ Azeotropic's attempt to convert the Metropole into a boutique hotel and displace its tenants into racially segregated neighborhoods and housing, thereby perpetuating racial segregation and subjecting African-Americans and disabled persons to adverse, disparate impacts in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3605.

193. The relocation plan as designed by and/or implemented by The Model Group/Brickstone for the Metropole residents is attempting to relocate the Metropole tenants to segregated neighborhoods and segregated housing, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Upon information and belief, the Metropole tenants have been taken to see numerous apartments as possible new homes by agents for the Model Group/Brickstone, and with little exception these apartments were in segregated neighborhoods or were segregated housing. When a Model Group/Brickstone representative was asked by one tenant if there were apartments available in Mt. Lookout on Cincinnati's predominantly white East Side, the Model Group Agent responded negatively and laughed out loud at the tenant. Defendant's actions constitute "racial steering" and perpetuate racial segregation, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604 and 3605.

194.

Furthermore, The Model Group/Brickstone is conspiring with 3CDC/Azeotropic

to steer the Metropole tenants into buildings which Model Group/Brickstone either owns or manages in order to obtain the tenants' federal housing subsidy. Upon information and belief, the buildings owned and/or managed by The Model Group/Brickstone are almost exclusively in segregated neighborhoods and are not racially integrated housing. Defendants are thus engaging in a scheme of self-dealing designed to financially benefit the Model Group/Brickstone that is contrary to the needs, interests, rights and desires of the Metropole tenants and which is unfair,

41

deceptive and unconscionable, in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.e. §§ 3604 and 3605.

195. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts, and will continue to suffer harm absent intervention by this Court.

CLAIM FIFTEEN: Violation of Ohio Fair Housing Law

196. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

197. Under Ohio civil rights law, "discriminate" includes segregate or separate. O.R.C.

4112.01(7).

198. Through the actions alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, The Model Group and Brickstone Properties have committed unlawful discrimination, including the perpetuation of racial segregation, racial steering, and subjecting African-Americans and disabled persons to adverse, disparate impacts in violation of Ohio fair housing law, O.R.e. 4112.02(H)(I), 4112.02(H)( 4), 4112.02(H)(5), 4112.02(H)(l 0),41] 2(1-1)(15), and 4112.02(H)(21).

CLAIM SIXTEEN: Consumer Sales Practices Violations

199. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

200. Defendant Model Group/Brickstone Properties are the property managers of The Metropo1e Apartments and are providing "relocation services" to the Metropole tenants, and are "suppliers" as defined by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01.

201. Plaintiffs are "consumers," as defined by the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.01. Plaintiffs are tenants of the Metropole Apartments, currently managed by Defendant Model Group/Brickstone, and receive "relocation services" from said Defendant.

42

43

202. Defendant Model Group/Brickstone has engaged in, and has conspired with Defendant 3CDC/Azeotropic to engage in "unfair," "deceptive," and "unconscionable" practices towards Plaintiffs in the provision of "relocation services." Defendant Model Group/Brickstone continues to committ such practices, and continues to conspire to do so with 3CDCI Azeotropic.

203. The unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable practices referred to in the foregoing paragraph include, but are not limited to promises that the "relocation program will insure that tenants monthly rent will not increase and all related moving expenses will be covered," that each tenant will receive "one-on-one" assistance and that 3CDC and/or Model Group/Brickstone will "insure that the relocation plan ... ultimately results in improved, higher quality living

conditions."

204. In spite of these promises, Plaintiffs have only been shown, with little exception, relocation options that are in segregated neighborhoods and buildings, often in high crime areas with poor connections to public transportation, job opportunities or support services. In addition, The Model Group/Brickstone and/or 3CDC have contradicted these initial promises, stating that only some moving costs would be covered, by attempting to move tenants into units where their rents would increase, and by asserting on its website that "there is no guarantee of one-on-one assistance or that tenants will relocate to better quality housing." Such deceptive statements violate the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

205. Furthermore, The Model Group/Brickstone's attempt, in conspiracy with 3CDCI Azeotropic, to steer Metropole tenants into buildings which Model Group/Brickstone either owns or manages in order to obtain the tenants' federal housing subsidy, is a scheme of self-dealing designed to benefit the Model Group at the expense of the Metropole tenants' rights,

44

needs, interests and desires and is unfair, deceptive and unconscionable III violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.e. 1345.02 and 1345.03.

206. As a direct and proximate result of 3CDC/Azeotropic's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered economic and non-economic damages, and will continue to suffer such damages absent the intervention of this Court.

CLAIM SEVENTEEN: 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy

207. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraphs.

208. Defendant The Model Group Inc. and its subsidiary Brickstone Properties conspired with Defendant 3 CDC/ Azeotropic to interfere with Plaintiffs civil rights by designing and implementing a relocation plan, the purpose of which is to displace the Metropole residents from their homes and steer them into Model Group owned and/or managed buildings in segregated neighborhoods, to Model Group's financial benefit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

CLAIM EIGHTEEN: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

209. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraph.

210. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Model Group/Brickstone's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered emotional distress and mental anguish.

211. Defendant acted intentionally or in reckless disregard and knew or should have known that its actions would result in serious emotional distress to Plaintiffs.

212. Defendant's actions were committed with conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights and interests and caused Plaintiffs substantial harm, therefore Defendant Model Group/Brickstone is liable for punitive damages.

CLAIM NINETEEN: Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

213. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraph.

214. Plaintiffs are tenants of The Metropole, a HUD subsidized building, and are parties to lease agreements between themselves, the landlord (3CDC/Azeotropic) and HUD, for Project Based Section 8 rental units. Plaintiffs are thus subject to, and beneficiaries of, HUD regulated leases and accompanying subsidies.

215. Defendant The Model Group/Brickstone Properties was and IS aware of this contractual relationship.

216. Defendant Model Group/Brickstone's actions described in the foregoing paragraphs have tortiously interfered with and threaten to terminate Plaintiffs Metropole Apartment leases, and the rights and benefits pursuant to those leases under federal law, in order to transfer the federal subsidies attached to said leases to Defendant's own properties.

217. Defendant Model Group/Brickstone's interference with Plaintiffs' leases is without justification, and Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer damages as a result of Defendants misconduct.

E. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF CINCINNATI

CLAIM TWENTY: Violation of Fair Housing Act

218. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraph.

219. Defendant City of Cincinnati, in exchange for federal funding from HUD, has certified to HUD that it administers all of its programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, and thus the City has incurred the full legal obligations imposed on all federal departments and agencies by 42 U.S.C. § 3608(d) to not only refrain from

45

220. To certify to HUD that one affirmatively furthers fair housing, when in fact one

discriminatory acts, but to actively promote racial integration and fair housing and to avoid

taking any action or pursuing any program which hinders fair housing opportunities and/or

perpetuates segregation in housing or neighborhoods. Thus the City's obligation to affirmatively

further fair housing requires the City, at a minimum, to study the racial and socio-economic

effects on housing and residential segregation of its actions and programs before proceeding with

a particular course of action.

does not, likely constitutes a violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq.'

221. Defendant City of Cincinnati offered substantial taxpayer funding through grants

and loans totalling $7.1 million to 3CDC/Azeotropic for the sole purpose of redeveloping the

Metropole Apartments into an upscale boutique hotel. Upon information and belief, the City

conducted no analysis of whether such funding would perpetuate racial segregation, hinder fair

housing opportunities and/or have adverse, disparate impacts on African-Americans and disabled

persons.

222. Despite failing to conduct a fair housing analysis of the effects of its funding

decision, the City knew or should have known when it funded the conversion of The Metropole

to a boutique hotel that the Metropole tenants were largely African-American and disabled or

senior citizens, with the knowledge that no other affordable housing existed for these residents in

the downtown Cincinnati area, and that displacement of these residents would destroy a scarce

resource of integrated affordable housing and perpetuate racial segregation by displacing the

Metropole tenants into segregated neighborhoods and housing.

4 See United States of America ex. reI. Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County. New York, No. 06cv2860 (S.D.N.Y.).

46

223. In fact, upon informatin and belief, the City, either directly or indirectly, was an active participant in facilitating the transactions which led to the prepayment, ownership transfers, HAP transfers and approvals thereof by HUD, and its recruitment of 21c Hotel of Louisville to invest in the conversion of the Metropole.

224. Additionally, over the approximately the past decade, through funding decisions, approvals, and support both formal and informal, the City has actively collaborated with Defendant 3CDC in the destruction of Downtown affordable housing and the accompanying displacement of African-Americans, thereby eroding the previously stable racial integration of the Central Business District. Thus it has helped to create the current dilemma whereby the destruction of The Metropole could in fact be the tipping point by which Downtown becomes a racially segregated, rather than integrated, community.

225. By eliminating integrated affordable housing and perpetuating racial segregation through its spending power, the City of Cincinnati violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC §§ 3604 and 3605, violated its duty to affirmitatively further fair housing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d) (thereby placing the validity of its certifications to HUD in doubt) by taking actions which will lead to the perpetuation of racial segregation and which will have a disparate, adverse impact on racial minorities and persons with disabilities. Because it was subject to affirmative obligations to prevent discrimination, the City of Cincinnati's actions had no legitimate justifications.

CLAIM TWENTY -ONE: Violation of Ohio Fair Housing Law

226. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraph.

227. Under Ohio civil rights law, "discriminate" includes segregate or separate.

O.R.C.4112.01(7).

47

228. By funding the conversion of the Metropole Apartments from affordable housing

to an upscale boutique hotel, thereby eliminating housing units altogether in the Central Business

District, and also thereby eliminating a racially integrated, affordable housing resource and

displacing tenants into segregated housing and neighborhoods, the City of Cincinnati committed

unlawful discrimination by perpetuating racial segregation and subjecting African-Americans

and disabled persons to adverse, disparate impacts, in violation of Ohio fair housing law, O.R.C.

4112.02(H)(I), 4112(H)(3), 4112(H)(4), 4112(H)(5), 4112(H)(7), 4112(H)(10), 4112(H)(l2),

4112(H)(lS), 4112(H)(21), 4112(1) and 4112(1).

CLAIM TWENTY-TWO: 42 USC § 1983 Free Association, Free Speech, Equal Protection, and Due Process Violations

229. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the

foregoing paragraph.

230. The City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its police force and under color of

state law, deprived Plaintiffs of their right of free association and free expression guaranteed by

the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by precluding Plaintiffs

from peacefully assembling and meeting with their advocates and legal representatives for the

purpose of organizing against the Metropole redevelopment plan, and by harassing and

intimidating Plaintiffs as a result of their decision to exercise the right to free association and

expression.

231. The City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its police force and under color of

state law, deprived Plaintiffs of their right to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by subjecting Plaintiffs to harassment

and intimidation as a result of Plaintiffs' decision to exercise their right to free association and

expression.

48

232. The City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its city council, city manager, and mayor, and under color of state law, violated Plaintiffs' right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by financing the redevelopment of the Metropole Apartments for the invidious purpose of relocating Plaintiffs out of downtown Cincinnati as a result of Plaintiffs' minority and disability status.

CLAIM TWENTY-THREE: 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy

233. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference each and every allegation in the foregoing paragraph.

234. Defendant City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its police force, its city council, its city manager, and its mayor, and acting under color of state law, conspired, among others, with The Model Group/Brickstone and 3CDC/Azeotropic to deprive Plaintiffs of their right of free association and free expression guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by precluding Plaintiffs from peacefully assembling and meeting with their advocates and legal representatives for the purpose of organizing against the Metropole redevelopment plan, and by harassing and intimidating Plaintiffs as a result of their decision to exercise the right to free association and expression.

235. The City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its police force, its city council, its city manager, and its mayor, and under color of state law, conspired, among others, with The Model Group/Brickstone and 3CDCI Azeotropic to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the u.s. Constitution by subjecting Plaintiffs to harassment and intimidation as a result of Plaintiffs' decision to exercise their right to free association and expression.

236. The City of Cincinnati, acting by and through its police force, its city council, its city manager, and its mayor, and under color of state law, conspired, among others, with The 49

circumstances.

Model Group/Brickstone and 3CDCIAzeotropic to violate Plaintiffs' right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by financing the redevelopment of the Metropole Apartments for the invidious purpose of relocating Plaintiffs out of downtown Cincinnati as a result of Plaintiffs' minority and disability status.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Metropole Tenants Association, Robert Wavre, and Derwin Tate demand from Defendants the following relief:

1. A declaration that Defendants' actions, as described individually and collectively above, violate federal law, the U.S. Constitution, and Ohio law as described in each of the claims above;

2. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate Plaintiffs' federal, constitutional, and state rights;

3. Monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including punitive damages for Plaintiffs' state law tort claims;

4. Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC 1988 and Ohio state law as authorized by statute or equity; and

5. Any other such relief in law or equity as the Court may award under the

so

Respectfully submitted,

TERENCE R. BRENNAN (Ohio No. 0083424) The Brennan Law Office

30 Garfield Place, Suite 600 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(5 13) 3 81-1 1 72 terence@tbrennanlaw.com

JENNIFER M. KINSLEY (Ohio No. 0071629) Sirkin Kinsley & Nazzarine, Co. LPA

810 Sycamore Street, Second Floor

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(513) 721-4876

jkinsley@skn-law.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

51

(, - -. 1;:-;; ~.

~J.t. Of!·A:1·rM~nl" O~ I-!OUSING .. \ND UR£!Af~ OEVEL.OPMGNT j.~OIJ:::tf-JG _ ;~oe.n!"-L HOU~I~~{li COM~.lISS~Ot::Er.

tlEG.UI_A-n:;W( j\GR£H.~~NT rOH UMITED DISHlISTJTION MOrnGAGORS l.lNI)f:n SECTION 130 (IF TII£ NATIONr,i. HOUSIIJG ACT_ AS AMENDED

.~-

$3,130,700 (rrcdHkd to $3,126,800)

S.l~ll! Ohio Count}' flalllHton !J>l. Cctul:.8r }-, 1971
fuok 3835 ro~" 1055, as rrodified in
r.cox 39ij2, Page 110
oJ ~/~lt\ do,l>r ~/A _ _j t H~ 88 w!!'},. 3ddr~I' is 1225 [)\.thUn Read, Columbus, Ohio 43215

.-:_':j

their succe ... ~I,.H~. heirs. i:!nd j.s-:s.J(;m· {I\.nnlh~ and. severallv. ht:l~wa(~tJ rd.~rr('d tl_l :]5 O ..... nr;1~J ~Ilcj zhe. unders.]~'1le--cJ Secretary of H~u$lnf and Urb,ln !J<~dOP"'";lt an-d her successors, ,c;int: by ~n~ IIIIOlli"' d,~ M'I>I.nt Secretary [or HOllsins·f<derJI Housing C,:-mnii5Wlilr'~ {h':;;:Iiiiifl{, r ..::a.n::d C.:JITHni~5!0~c!.~?~.

•.. :;:

. :~

In ccuslderatton of tttc cn{iOli-;-m::>r1{ for I.lUUT.:l:OCe \.I'" thr Cornh1~i!;l{J~1(>( of the ~bo~i' dl2$cnb;:d llo'-e or fIt comirJeraUon {IC tue (.on'!f'ui of the Comrulssloner La th~ lIins(~f ottht- Hl.i):n~;~i·d ~qOp,nty. errel In order 10 ~omvl}' ·wl\h tne rl!quif~mcnH o-r S::cUon 236 or Ih. Nallonat llollSln~ Act, 3, amended •• ni tho n~~ul~~i"r,; ati~p\"~ by the Conlml<lil)n~f putsY~nt th'l~~O. ° ",rm$ '~r<.IOf the-urselvcs , ti,.jqU,'~?'''m.IJ~lr~ 3no a>~Il'"5_ thH in c01i11~ellOfl with tho mortr..r.eO property ~nd \lIe prolect OPN~lod tnorcon "n" :;0 IC{1~ as ihE' C"::-"FlifMt cf UH)n~n~~\~ lnsurance c-ontil1l.:tl"":1 In d(e~L .'HH1 Q'tFrll1g such further period ~f ume es tllt.' Commissioner s.haU bi: tho (lWIWr, ho'd£:; or j"('lflS~~~i ~,f tho;!: rno-nf..~t:€", or dlJom: all)" lllilf th~ Comcusnoncr I'). {Ji;H:t::05:l-td to iusvrc '" mon~a.t:~ ':"ji.i:·.': 'i~U:i." i".!~!:f'rl r;t(.:I~·tl ~/:

1. fhm~I"!=-. (~~~r)! 11<:; ~lmH(I(.1 h~T r'~,"'t'-.;rh 11 h-rr-eof (h:::=H promptly 1I)::IY.i" r:lll);l.ym['nl., due: unilfll the n-01,,, and mortaccc ; PIIHiu('dl however, that t!lol" OJmmls:s.lonef :shall mfltf P.3ytl\{'lIl!; 10- ll1f> inorlgagt'"~ on b~hll:lI of the Owners j;) .9.tCOrdIUl-c.e WF.l1lh,· ~JlIt;'I('~\ rcriuctlcn COIt~f=iict 1J~'lw",?n the Iil(~n?J~f-p. I.Jlid thr- Commlssloner.

2. (::I) O.;·dC!i :::.h.:H -C·-:'l:Jbli:s.h or cC)lllimH' to m3in(~111 a reserve (lind for H,,)-lat;L!fn'}i1ts b~' the aliocauon tv !:oud, " .. ~\ (" ,E; lU'1G ;;1 a S-{-P.:!JiHo: ~ltCmUIt,. wi+h the In~lrt~iJ.r.l"(- or in i=! s~f(' lind rcsponstnle d('p9.1itor;: dNSjl:nal,=,d b-, ~he m(;ftt3:p"r;:l·. concurrent. I~r with the beginning 01 pilYIlWn[S ~ow;:.rd~ .i':1r'II'Hll.aHou (I( the ~Ittll"d'p~~ oC lh.., m>:)t~~.).gt' }pspreu or 11",1" or the CrJ'.r1mls,

~jr.JII":-~' 'Of au nmount equal to .s 9DG ... 00 j:i~' m-c.n1h unless .~ rllff(l1;.nl diltf rlt amou 11 I h :tPP"(~\·.f'd IH

',';r~Hnr. by the (';-'mm~~dl)nN~ Such fmHL wh~thH ill lh£> fOHn of a. c::Jsh d2PO::H ill" hll"f!:.ll?(i hI Qbh~3ti{'tI!- or~ Of {uH~' f;~~~ m~'}E:·d."i5. ~Q pfli1df:"21~ h~ ~ HI~ VflH~·O S'al;!.'::. of t'i.ln(:iki), ~h3H !ott jill Wlii'.!r li~ undN t.~c ccurrol {.r \h~ fll(o((~ai.N·, )}~s' !~! . .!:!;:~m~nl~ !r~~ 'S~!~.h !lH~o1l ':.~'h~{t!'i!r f(l-t H:~ ~t1!P~~~' 0f ~n~-;t!n~ r!""!\hf~,Tr-!'"~t of ~"!.!!.!:~1U!,9~ d:"mf·ms. ~:1:;! :l ... ~:::!:::mk:?;~ (~"4ulpmi'[\t (if th-::- project or for 3n~J oth~t purpose, way be m~.:;It 1)111)' cHef Tec~~\iJ!.g th~ r;on~~nt In wrHinr. qf tnE..' Com· I"nh~lonr;r. in tn.t· event Ot;!J t1'~~:HllllT< ~he ~\'rm$ of 01[; rllo[~g ... ge. pursuant (Go wh~('h the- 1003nh''l") tlfffl o(,~l'!l(·ra(IJ~J~ th~ Cl)tliTll!~~5iuIH,:r may eppty or ~lJth.mlu' ih"E ~prH~8:Uo" I)r th'! Inl~nc{> In sucu lund to the r:rnOIJElt. d!I€> on tho lnorlgag~

.: .. ~,; '::; : .. ~L,~,::-:;~~~t ~l..::C ::-.(/~~c,·3.t!.!_0 ~~ ~~""!~?·1(~~!2d h!;=:~-~~r.Q f()l.~ JludifiCE.!.tion of thls

p,'E(<;J1: apn I. \a) •

(I)) ;,rr;·;~ii' UYijrHS ~h.' l5.cQtlri."iJI;:: n D~Gj:.:.c.[ ;jJiCi\Ij::.' subject to an i.iTi'iI:i~·;j i1i:E)f~e~gIL til,. i'·~~F.:'n.'.~ ftJfI(1 rm' rfpl:J'i:~mefiii to l>e -:;~.t;"jbU shc'f1 wilt b~ of':q 11=31 t(.l til i:' (l:H1r}UHI d He to h~ In su r:h hind 1,1 iIlh"c (>xlsllt'l~ ~fr«f'm{lrH!". or chfat'l,r pf(,l\'Blan-;. at, U11' nrar~~·.r .. rj""'-:: ~rtlt:~!'c; n~{h ~::>~l:::-tT ::i.tl p!..;'!:-~:··E~:; !:'t;;~~:~~~ti ;:::]:.::~~ ~:;·t:~n v ': nh l!1-e tint p~ym:}itt d::':::-!):J th~ ~o·d.s::-~::, ~!~zr ,t;-:..:! .~iil(lfl, u~II!.' n s. !!PJU{' otll'f't n:.elflod .of c:s.tilhl!shlnf and frl.:tlnt<1hlir~l! the (und ls ~ppl"o\'ed Of" roquhed In Wtit~ug b~' the Cotni"nissim)t;!r.

(c} O\,;i'~l'J~ ~il!:l:H ("~h;blhh ;J.nJ iu~.:illt:}lnl If) ~ddit!(ln to tll~ r'·:::~f~:: [UIlI) foe l~p!;:i{:'~m~l!h1 e festdl.l<!.i !~~cipts Iunrl b~' {!~~ po:=illina thlJi· • .'!lo1 with th,! 1H~'n~~tel:!l~ ~ th~ l=i-ildl,Ji'!l r~c~~p['SI as di2HlIcd het(:ill~ v"'iUlh~ (ii) daY3 ~(l~r the end 01 UU' $o;LJni~ ~'lll1l31 or :1Ilnuu! fiscal ptlic~ within , .. ;lll~h ~u~h receipts U. N~H,~>\, Hc!ldt!'lr~c"lp!$ .h~lI be under the ~'mlml M

Hw C~J.ilHllh,,!onH t {Iud fh~ll lH' di~~HW,,{!d {.r.ly (,n iht; djll.'(l1uu of ,1\(: Cr-,JiIH)g~it.Jli~i • ..;'510 shall hiJ'>1} th'! p-uv.:e, ~nu .author· i".y t{; ulfl:~~ that th(l" to;:·r~du:;} l:.~(;!lJpl'i;, or any P~IL 1h(:r~(lf, f.I~ I,!~..,.d f(.zr ~,IJc:h pl~lrHJ~f.1\S h-e nlflY d[l"\~Hninc.

«;} WWl th~ PlID( OI'P!'}Y"I (>nh~· t,;;~ii';~~5!~,j~rjir\~? wlH.(-91~!1Il!h.ftl,~~gb ~r\~~mI)Z\ioH (I) ~ u"to tN\\'o1 ohargc ,Iolerl,lilwd vll th~.~~3.i; "[<>p'~J~I!n" ~l!~.J'~M~~t:';~I!.li)_~i:~~*~t~·y( p.rlri~ir,~t~M @;.~~if;~Jli·de? ~ n1ori;!';!u bmillC lI,lcr.st .t (In::: rcrf-:::'nt~.!u.) _{2} ? (~~l.~?).\~·the~ i"~(!.~~l cn':"!.~?:~~.~f.~i.~J~~.~P-8P .t~~ :~!"I.~_~ ~~b)~ttM1nt.~f~.(\Pf9l~ct .. \'::l~h y:"ymp.nt'i. uf prim;], ~'~J. ltllei'i;·~L" l'!:n-d 1"~lOi~g~t-:·j_llSur3n~,:, }}-!CJniYirt1·dv:e·.ij~at!i'";fhe lh·7iUoid ·lJl.t?itg~g~ tJ"Wtij.~· proj:!;.d_· p~Q"'ld~((, hQWC1{_~! ~ th al \,;'Hh t f;.~~(~d: {~ .thr}s~ ·Jlfoj~~JS \\'h1eh ti11i" C-b~~.U"nb.sloh~r h;!.S Qet¢tr(jjn~d niH'S ~p~tal~ 1!~lU ty In(·t~ls [tjI1U -in \1:hlc£1 t!' O;:iut.r; tlr" bHlcd ·Gi"~i:~tCY~t~·~::~~~:{~~~.n: or·an or·~Ll·~.utiHty·cl:~r~~~ t\~hitH~(.3_~}'.~:UL!.I.t~<.l,f~!r~ ~~t;~\' {i('~.t.!f~·,. ~hr. p~,;kr .... nl~t dH~q;o? ~nrj tl\~ (~J~-!';:Etr~:~l·1~r1t~.1:{:'h~r~E:: ~h;* ~c d~.;~{Ml~~ ~:m .th~fi~*i~;,f O)~pt~}h~~·jl(<j.l):i9I~i!~ ~Y.iJ1f=o\H Jnr;h!dh.l[;{1~e.(7~st Qr

:!!1..~ch I~lmt:.~ ~c::r,,!~t;~ thl~·iw~h tmlt: . ,'.. . . . . .'''~.'.- ., .

....

Exhibit A

';.",,"

l.t~J It,.; ri'flt~!~ (hi~'~~[cJ for t';'l-(h I.mit v.;'!1i (-,i..! +.!q\!;jllo '25":'~QI .n::! i.('r.~il~~'$ ~djlJ,;ti:!::I !rtC'Onll! or U',{,,' oii!;.t(! !l'nl;l.1. \\hcl!(";-t>r i;~I"i':'H:r. urovrds d , OO\· .. e .. ·'?{~ ~,} ti;oJ~{"l~ \"~Uh.5t·L'~!·il.[C uUlH~' mctea hi UU' unHs WO;;tt the lC[1i7H1lS wm be" b',ikd ditt'L"\." ~y :''I1v:i l'J-y {oJf ~(Hf!~' or ~n of the I..';~mt}f ch-;::[a:~.'i ~Q.lh(l ~ttJ!!}· Ct~inpili-l)'. the monthly iii'ti~u.! i:"hi:ii~-:r ... 1 (or cech ur.it w~n be tii~ ~re-auu 1Jf ._h~ b:uk n'rHa~ ((''!kuI21('~1 in acccndanee wHh the proviso in 'p~filg[ilrh 'l(:j~)} or- 25% of the ten~nt·s adjl;~t(·cl inccme lcs .. .:'l. Q9dt;cH\li. for (hi! '.Hil~t}' ilHI)\'r-1UC~ api='tO":-""ed by lhe ClJrL1ln~s\if)m~r, but to nn event sJJ~.111 [Ii:~ 11.!f1::IIl["s G",:'ji-.,_-.; t,=.: i_l--):» ~hiUl ~O%(:-t tLii adjl.:~~~;J i11{,;. a :thL:; iacorae; thil: ;iln~.i)l \;haj-i~d :ih~U r'~-o;;".:-. "i;'\':~;_:_-~ tal? fcI~ :I,;;tb·t j'(:;"It:;.t:

(c] thl'Y ~halilimit :h1:-nh':'IOIll!) the pi"oi;-c-t to th(>~~ Wh058' i~c~~.n"..s do nQt-€:i~l!c;I tJ"J.!."! nrnn.~ rrf'sr::rib~dby th-e (~II;n;~~!..:~<l'.rL!.Cr~ .:_.~~~~ th:: '':;;:';:'~v~iofl of H:.;,;;.:;: tvi"i';;':lt~ ';;.:~~ ;;:;::i.r~z to jiJi}' f!1it ~hMr~ ... ,~ r"';ijia,;

{d} pH~r-f[(!I1.CC tor cccupsney sh~U b~ g;j",,:!n to thO~1} di.!.I1·I;,H:ed from an urban renewal area, or as 11 cesult cf E-o~·emtnen{.;11 J.CHO-JI, or 415 rt (~ult cd 2- dif;'\$I~l' r.h:t~:rflI1f1r .. d by th-!."' rres)dcl1t to lie a mejcr disaster. and, In those JHOJCCts utilizing lncome tlnslts In elf.ct or.or to ,\ugu,j 22.191-1. to those whose [ncornes are wHhi~ the tcwest p,,<lieablc limit, (Ql ~lJt'~llill~ W1!f11 unus In the prQi~ct;

{r;-) QU forms ;:'PVro\"E;U b)' the Commh-slonN they will obtetn rrom each prospectire tenant, prl-or to adrnlsston to the project, il (:NtUh;an{)I) or lncorne, and a ('c~n.ifi(!atiE)!l or income irOJtl ;on ~9nants who .att not ptl,}'log ra~r m\lr~:;-et r.:n'-,)~ at Intflll.'ais 11; required by the CoU1rI1:IS-$10n·a~

(f) if ."y focorHficalion ro" ec b a th.'''~. in lncumc wh.reby thr tenant becomes ~lIglble fur a lower or high?> zcntat, such adj>J~thl\!iH: In Y:!.i:!;il d,.::-q;~d shall be mado, piOJ\'~d~d thnt fE-rti-Ji silall fltVI,;!{ be Ie-59 rhan baste renta[ and ~h-3n neve! 'E'.'(co?eo [...-lil'" fn~r~(;t root.'):I:

(v.f in a n1.1IlIlH p rc acrlbed by the Corrunlssioner, thEY will obtain ll'ri:~n evidence substanHMh,g th.I,,£unnBtion g,,'cn Coil thE- l~,narli.'t) certlflcatlons and H.~·.e;~tUflC'aHom of Income and ~haH !o:"t:J~n th!! evldence tn th~ir Ole-~ for ~hr'l?c ycaes,

(hf Itley ',It.lI require .Ulcn'!JlS who do not Illy th. f~\r n",kot rent,1 to execute a I~as~ in Ih~ form prescrfbsd by tho (})IMnl,;;:t.1"·f\N. ami :s.h.:t!~ net r::--;1! :;;-,;- :_;,;it ln ~h~ prl)Jerl for f~s:r then ;l(jUiiY;- nor more th3r. nnu Y~:H:

t'J tht':y ~Il:;lll rcrmt to n,;'! Ce..·Ml,J;;5Ion~r on ot b~«OI': tho (.:nth ria)' of ~a¢h month. !htl amount by whtch the tota! r~n(;1~:i collccred on th", iJW{'lIitl~Ur.i!S exceeds th::! sum of the" 3~pro",.;d b(i_::.h~ i'Uclal' fOf all occupied unlt~~ \~'hl:ch remittance

_~_hi'!li be .jl('('ompanit"~l by -a monthly report Lin:l form "P9?'Qr.;od hy tho Commissioner, J,u'o:,'htc<1 to{!.t J!I .1ll{Jn~hly 1r.-POrt mus: hr. fll~·:~ rcY';:!l if:m ~2;nHL'IH.~ I" f;";~n-Ir.:~::

(j} lh(:y shall not n~.itrict o'C{;UP;-SltCY hy t~:"'~Qn of tnl~ f;:..r;l !.hat theft.' (l,(c children irllhe rHlilly~~xc(opt In tho.H· projects th;'l~ are Il*,.';i~.I1i·lf pnmanly (Ot d!lNI}·l-'~r.if.)m;

Ql no chan~~ will b. m~dc In On- b';i~ r.Mal or (.1, t~",k.( r~nt«l unl~s~ 3JlP!o· .. ~d by th~ Ccmmisslon .. ; and 1<1 lh~ ,'.ent ui:it some or oli of Ih. ~rliHI", ate Illrti,1du.i()' mel~red.lo wh1<1t ca'~ the Commlssloner wlil 11,,.. appt()~od a utility ;,;nrt~~·;inl.':o::' (Qf r::-.;:h ~1.dL ~h~)' ::l'iW:'C to n qucct from the G::J;ii'ilill'i.:.lvfiU an adjustmE-nt ill the _gPPfU~(!tll~U1i'i{'.') il.IO\;"::I_n~r. wHhin 90 Q::r)"!..li there arc tUilit.y r;nfo. [nr-r ... ·_ n ~L·'!. wrlid~ f.e-~It!t ~11:) curoutauve il1n~.;)~~ of 16 percent or more ~n the- cost or u!lllllo5Ind"d~d In the t~(eH 3~p'm.d ulililiH "110\·'.3nc~:

~r:."~ rt c t:::'·:::;j~ .::!1:c;!~::- ::::·~;t~ ... -l 'n ~a~.~ .. :-.~.~[ !!::::: .::-;:- :~:::: .:;: :.:.j. ;;:.q~ ~ilu;; ·t'.-i4iHsiH ~;;;:; pnor written ~tiPt"Ij\',:d uf Ihv Cl.IUlmi~:;km::-.·;

(n) It ~n 1.IW p(-OJ~l'( lh~Hl 0I1~ ~CJll !tuppl~mcM. lmU~" 01 UniH: rt;~':;;ivif1S atttlidartli 'J'i'i.isl:mcl! p<Jym~rJs pUnU::!.1H to S-eciion 236 (0 en. th~ U~I~im'n~li'Jr~ :)',: to {he E:HglhWlY ()f tenants for r.t.!m\!sion (0 such unus ;l1nl the ccndutons r;t( (:onli'H",.~d Ol;.:n1p'j·iH:'Y shall 0"-:' in accordance with th? Rent SU~fjl.r:m{:nt ContrilO:1. Qr RfrH:l1 Assistance C0nrrj_c~ ;;._:'::;;._:Ull!U 'lly the Owners end COfiirrU:.!tionl::{ .. ·.·h~dl is ~11c:r)lp-O~;JI..:-ll ln ilf.l.d rita,"':' ~ pj(~ ~H lhf~ Ai.1((:~·m,:;m,

5. Up(,!} j}li')r writt.(>u aJ)p-TD\':-d of lin" Couurusstonvr , the- OwnHS U\ij~' dH'l{~-e to end recetve from o:ny tenant such amounes as (roulllme too HOI-2 may be IIl'JtUJU}' .:J."!,:reed upon bttw,=,t!n .h..J t€iI,a,H ;)ih1 illil' O\'/Hen rot i~ny f¢:dHU~s i!JH~/or ~\!n~c~'~ , ... hid, m;IY b& {t'rfll~r,t'\ boy th(' f)WIIH or othl:[S ~o such t~JI~{]t ~~I'cm his rcqm:·;tt ~n J?[hUtton to th-(I f-;!{'IlHicJ. .and ~n"lk(o:s. irJ("ludl:u in thl.! ?lPP(i)\"",(~ :Rtlltd St;ht-tiuh".

,

(~) COli'l~ Y I tf3f1Ji,[cr. C'= ~ n(UilJ:h~: ::!n~' c i th~ r:lll'Hg2_flf!d prOf~nt r, 01 perrr.i~ 1 h{.· C',)lt':ri~'.~u~~, t.r~n:;fH O~ <! ncuf;l}U:l"a..;(:· of SUd:; p;oj7("n~{j_

(I'f M;I~n, tmnsfe,·. ~"pl';. of, Qr .ncumON ~nl' p~[!(Jn~llHo.'~ny of th~ pr<lj .. d; InClurJin~ renl~. fl, p~.~' out lny tuy,d$, (llIler ,hon (rom ,ulplUI c~h, tXC~pt (OT 1O~:om'hl~ op~ratln~ ~l:Pen£H on,[ J\ccel~!)' r~paJr~:

{c) C9nl'oy, a&sign, or tqns(cr on}" b~neljd"J InIoN>! fn !lny In.m hQldll1~ HH9 t"t!1e m<lHga~e<l prop<rty, or 1!1~ inh·t~sl ur ;:l.11}~ l:,:n(:f"3~ (lar1Ht!( 'j_1l i.I VJnp;~~~"ip Q-w'n~fi~, th-ti IHort~jg~d l)rof-lI~rllr .(Jr ~nr rl-Cht to aHIt"lt:.g!! 'tH Ic-!;ch'¢ the- n:JI~~ i,iJio prouts hOI11 lhe nlOH~'ceti pro:'Nty:

(d] l-l~nH.j~~el., !J~.?}~:.!·~~vl~.!rlJ~t. Qf de-ru(~lhi, i:iJY p~n~?( 11~~}~19..U£'i}~~~~i.!lrQP~~H7·o:r ~uiJ:jtr![:t ('Off.! an~' a'ut Dr P~f51)1)i"J

p.r~r.\~n)' of Hl~j~.~:~j~;.d(~·· .' .'.,,':.; ';,:_:i ~~._. )~: .

:.~}~~f uwF 'T,~\

~J'~';. ~.::.:

~Sr:~;' ~(~) ~1~~;~,.l,!r_t~:~~l~'~~~.~~~~~~:Jin, j.ItY".?!H.tI~~~·~··~:;.~ ... q.f/~~~~.:·O; ~n~~j ·ill';ome .ljr.~)19· MIltl f)i \h.~.pr.9jtct, lLi(cept £::4Jm SB~'p-h~~

:ii} c:,,<h .ud ~X<.~!I,.l.·.-P.ilthi".(ofl[). Whl?Ctl.lid lij"n.~,.,'" '.' •... c>.>.,::·. , . 'c'" -. '.. '. . ."

~il 1t},.\lJ dislii~u{h'l) .• ~haii)i ·-n)y¥<">{i>t1;Md~uPl;<!'}iI'.mnb(jl1~i;J Qrl!nlw;Jt1.;c,,1 poriod, .n(looly '" ;;

R~J[~~~CS,'~~;I:~;:~!t~(;t}~W~I~:::~~~!~ll~:~::~~~~~;;'''i'''*iL

.::t.

UJ ~~(,} ul;.tr·!b'l.H10U ~:;II~H hp. inj.rk I:')rn iJ.f:Hl):~-~·rj Iu nd s or r~(i{·:r 1(1 nl~ comp!l"tiQr.o( tllt, p rojer L or ",,·iIi.TII ~h~lt' i-s ;!i";.I,' 11l1'):11i vndH ihr:, "-~r~rh:clr:"~ll 'Ii IJlUil-t i,iL- .. 0\( l,.'~ rnf)rl~:~;:!(;

i.3i /~r~) ,j:,~~;ib<.i~iD:C of .".Ir.), L.n·,o" ui lu_" lir(~~~·ei. \.:hidi tn~- P.:i._;{:' t!.·..:oJt\·irl;! such fund!. t:; ;1O~ tnt~t!~':1 ~o ra-tai n fa"H'T WJ!i;:L '!h~H b~' ncto S~I Han ~t:!r;jrah." eno :;\parl trom ,:my Olh("r lund!o~

:.! ~ "l rwre sh':!U h;j\~' t:~l·n ;:!)mph~r:.l'{· With "It (I:LIHllll1oing ntJOC-I?~.::r requreements Ior proper JTt~lm':Hn~mc(' o! ~hc i'I':'~~'( ~.

:~: ~_:~~;l_;::;. t:,:';:I:::p~ :":i +ld~~liI~ p~U~Jn~. in ~n~' ot.,(or lmsine'!-s- (~r f.Ca\'lty. lodiJdJo-g (ha O?er3~lOo uf uny other rcneal !-l,mject, or mew tny Ili'obihty or .obhNtiQlI not In connection with H.~ pro).u.t;

tiH Ht·qlJ~n:. as d rOhdiHon (If Llw oceuoaucy or ka:;lnf Q( an:-~ unH in the project, zny consldcrauon (IT deposit OHH'[ th:_\Ji tnt prr.t~:':Yf<lCM Q! {h~ f.:H rnouth'srcru plus a ":=2C--Ulitr (lE':pO~n tn ali amOunt not- ~n excess er one month's rent to £'" 1"'"tEi1lh~ p'([Nm."(~ onh. CO\,~[l'nl~ of the leas e, All)' fVijd coll.cl~<J as security depOsit, 5holl he kept s~paral •. l3-noJ ;'lp~a f' .. 'lorn hll other fUi1(i~. (~. t:--:!' rr.aj~d in a trusl8.c.c.)lItV_ Un' amount of wnieh 5h\J1\ at itO ~lm~:; equal or ~::-;tt'f:d the ::gr.t-;!!f!.3t-(' cf all DIJbhra1Ji1g- oiJI:t::)h;,J;U;' Hll(lCf sald aeeount;

{h) Permn the use .of the dwdHIlB a(:(;.)iHlt.tul1:}I.IG!lii ot ~h(: ~)tqlC?cl {or sny purpose except !11e me whith was (u)i!in:aHy ;11Lt.""de:d. (If pi:HnIlI.,:Ofll:ffI~r'HJ use €~-[,Ci.tl:'f·lhBn thtit Qtj~ln:aU}' OiJ'!pro\'cd b~' th-;: CQ;nmi~i(!ner;

($) lfl"~H .:)ny Jj'tbiHty, direct 0>( c:;onHnu>::nL, other thrn ror r.:':-!~relll :o-pc:l",~Ung E:<perw-:,-~. ~XCHI5l'ol'f of the =nd-('b~dne5-'j .... ecurcu by lh~ In!;!nf!~~~ and n-eeas-?lU>· indch:nt to the !=:-;£'CIJ~lO" .nrod rl"!'n\'arr thl:ri?o(~

0) Pay an>' compens . atlcn, tncludiE~g wages or salaries, QI iOCtJf ~(ar o,)hli~"'tI~iI1~,l(J th~m!-.:h-·es. 0( afl)T ofnt;~rs, directors, ~to-::~:ho}tlfn,: HIIHHS~ P::J:rt uers, E:II;nendarle1io under a trust. or to cny o( Ih~:;T ~llJ':>\UlF:e:s.;

'I. Owners shOJI! melntaln fM- rnoH~:;g!2-d pf{l-miS-t"s, accurnmouauons and Lbl' ~rulJnds and t:quipmt'M ;:,rIHH{t:fl~}nt ~hHt. .. to. III t:ood n·~tlir :'lnd condit~Qnr In th~ e .. ant a n OJ any of th€' uuHn\r.e;$- covered by till.' ,nuTLgl!tgc l'j·j·JH be {ll~;lroy€'d or d~l;l.red ~:v 11r~ or olr-n ('~,""II;tltYl lh" -mojfl~Y J~~l\"~d {j'o~n r.n:.' tnsurancc on the property :~:inU b~ ;:t_p~!ied in al;Tfjrd~!v'~' 'wi~h I_h(' term-s. (If the ir,~~r~" mOttg-"Sj?·

O. 0w~a'Ll ~II,:di ii-ij;, ~i:t iii1j' fli:i.l:;{J~·1 ~i~ ~·;'fil:T"i;.1t:;1 :::1.( fcr c rL~·~·!·.'~T, cor ~::: ir:;nh·-tr~r~ ,?r f1)-! !:~~~g=:!~l!~~t!OIl or romocsjnon. rJ[ make <)~i.y ~1$$I~l1nH:ht for th:? b';'i1~fit of tredH(,rs; or to- ;'I tn!sto?i! ((If t:fi:tiH(Jts ur pcrnnt ;:in .cd,luciicatiOnr in bankruptr y, tht' I"k~ng i]w~Zi~~on of the mOltg~g-e9 pr(,lp-2rl~' Of Im~' part tll(:ri'of by a receiver, Of thf!" $~~?t~[1,! Mld s~ll! o! the ml)"~J~t'd property or any pint thereof under jil(j(..:~;'\l precess or puuusnt lo an):' PO·I~·,e-! of ~h' anti (an to ni'\Yr;:' :&Ue;1l \id\'f~t~e acuons t!!1 ;j~i(!i' wiihln f6fty,n',r:: days.

':.I. (<<.1 O".:11Crs. -!inuH ~(()l"idt', rDI' the nl:JntlccH1!"nt .1)[ ltl€' PIrlJo€:Cl in :. m;HillU s3nshH.:tCir:.' to the Commlsstcuor. r\Hr n.··· cactn""1 conl,oClonto,.d [nto by Ol\'II~I~, or BHy of thern, hl\'ol\'i"~ the project ,h<lll conreln a provision th~l n ;liall 0.; .. j1.C~ to u'cml;;.;tiGJi. WUhoJ-\H :p~n1:Hy -I',nd \>,1tll or wlthout caus-e. upon wriuen t'eqL!t.!-l by the Oommis.'1iol'i;(>t addrE<)5~d (0 (lH.- O'.~·n~lE." Upon [+:,c~'iiJ'~ ~Jr .s-'1~h tf.'ql1~~t Owt]q;:. sh~1I1mm-euiN.~ly terminate lh-e contract a,vUhin _8 p~:r(O'! of nat rl1Qr~ ~h~iI ~hirty (:;O! d~y~ and shatt enake :ff.r.lngtn\E'fHs s:rilJ!s(::!(!tor}' to thE' Coll101lssiona for L:cntinuln~ proper lilil.I'l:~i!(-jlwnt or th-c: i"HO}E'C~o

{b) FJy(ll~nt fr,\r sc rvlce s •. mpplie~t Or rnate'rlnls shall not exceed tnt!" MnOUr1.l Qtilin3dly tl;]jt! for :.~tch scrvtee s. $upph~:., (H r.l;,~,_,~~i~ ill I.~~~ '!!"2'~ ,.~.~!o::!!: !!\::' !(if-'-~">""'~ :::-~ ::~!i;:!-:-::~1 C~ th~' ~1;!:''ip!!_,;:,'' .:,~' r.j,;~-~!i.~~~ f~:,r;i:;h;::;!

{c) Th~ mOHt!~lg~~j property I \!i{Uipm.rhf~ ~JUlhll:ngs·, PlQI}!i, O(i\('CS-, cPP~ti3tu;, d;::\iC1::£, h-OIJi-~~~ ccntracts , recosds, eccumems , one other papers r~IHing thCtHO "hall "l ~II tlrnes be malnt.in~d III rcesonuble ~on(Oltl~n (or rl0l'~r audit 'n~ 'hall b. subj{'ct to 1~~am;natiQn and iJ1~rH·-ct.iQn ~t (11)' reas-onj\b~9 time hr th~ Commastener (~I hls ,jtUy al.!tholiz(,fJ il_gt·Ol:', O\''''I"I~Tf

shell keep coples of 8H wrttten contl\{C:~oJ or othee InstnJm~ilts whlch ~frett the mOrtgdg~cj property. rill or ~n}' or wulch

"[('Y b. $\lhjr.Cl to lnspectlnn we ~~~dnatj(}n b)' tho CQmml,iioMf or hi, dull' aut!lQllz~d ij~enlS.

(d) 'Ih~ book, and accounts or the c,[)~raU~m IIf t!l~ mmt~<er.d M';>P('llY ~nd of (ile l"o'l~c! ,!tall b" l,~pt In ecc<>rd.n," v.1lil th~ t~qlllfl:f1iCnts of Ule Comm!s:S'lCjl:fri',

I~l .-\H a·m~ -md .:,lU ... tr :rP[""'I~I~.,f lh!.' pron-ct _~hl;'lll hl~ d{'po:;.H..;:,j in ttll' n arur uf L1w p rotrct it'! _J uank. -;,'~ha.~~· O~'p'"'l-~i:~ ~Jl.' jmwN11~r UI(' F.I).I.(. ~:!Ch flil1cf:: .,11JU lie vrirudrawn ollly in cccor dunce wuh tln.:o prO\·IHOi~$ ~d !.hl'S .. \j!l;\'<,>mC'ut (Oi C":r.'CII5.I·:; of thr- pri)]-:;c(. )1?miH.:lnco:::. to cl-u: Ccrnrnissrun-r as r~qui,r~d under P'Jme.rilph- ·!d) ,,"ul'i;'. llor furrlbhjhu. lWIi'S- 1.;( ~lJlfJ!ll:' o<n as Ilfllil_\~d br }·.l~·;";~(i.i~ih f,(j;) ahcco. Ar'i owner r~C~I·lm-;! {1,Irl.d:s: Dj'lhe :Jr'l}:l'd i.~~~I(·;- ~h~;rl h~' ~t~'-:f: di~·tin)~J!.lor. (If HllP~U5 'Cash ,:-i~~1L irnl1\~,;H:1tc~y d~pPS~t !j.uch £uflds in the pw~-c-ct b;:H1:K i"t(;:"oqr~ ~r~ {;;i.llir.~ S-o H>,?O Ui ~iO~~\~c;. ot Hw: Ag'~~i11-..-:nt ;;h;;;U iloiti ~r.idt.funil hrf,[lJ_:;i:~ .;..\rL}' o\',n9r-ii:!~hifii! P;:C"IP~.t}' -o(~h£'·p'!!.j:::-ct in rt~r~~lr}n ra( th19 ,.l.~r{,~lfl':nL 5h3L1 Itlim-a:·lJl~\~I}' dr:E\'N'" ~n:!ltV"tttp"2It9·-liftfrErproi-itti:fili rLlUlr.~ so to rio- shali huld sucn prcperty

in ini::.'£. • ~ ~ ::''iJ 6 ~ {lot !~~t..tt:a t~JHg

.' ,.y:. r.~ . .'.l 'M,

HJ. (:-C':'f'I(:[S w~!\ corflPW-'\'Hh !!~I~ PiO',-lW)fI'i (If Title Vl of the Civil Rj~.ht!= Act 0( t96'-1 {PubH~ L:J.w 8~·}S~. 18 fit:JL ~41 i.

Fmhitli~il1~ \H$njmin~l\ou En I;~d':!f::.liy :)~~i'Si:eu programs ~:m the grounux 1)[ rM;t::, ~r;:,ji, il~ m~tion::! ::'"d!!~!! ;'olld =lOY rio·d· iiiill. St:;_tt;. P.L t{}\"li l:;w p!uhibi!lng tH~cdll1iil':lHon in housing on the ~.JOUf1f.h of race, colcr, (QHSioZl. creed, sex or natic nal ",i1)'" including Tit~~ Vii! of the CM! !tightS Ml of 1968 (Public Law 90':/;84, 82 St~\, 13). as ~~1~lld~~, ExcclIlm" 0,.101 1106), and "II requirements imp",!.~d by or p~,su~nl (0 the !e~ubli"ns of the Department or Housing nnd UlbJn fl.,.I')pmO;H im)lkmo,dl\3 these ~ult""IlI~. (includin@ 24 eFR. Subtitle A.Pall I; 31ld Parts toO and I 10 and Subparts I "no M of PMI 200).

I L UplOn. \';ob';<)f, of any of tiln above pro,ilions of this Agr~~ment by Owners, the Commlssinnor may give wrilten norlco, ,hori!o(, 10 Owners, b~' r~gl'l<r.cl Or cerllHcd mail, addressed to the audrc ... s stated In (his Agreen'~"l, Or such other ~d::i.rt:;:!55 as may subsequently, upon approprlate wril~n UQOCC (hore(!.i to the Cormn!:s.stouer. O\:" des.ignM':!d by th~ Owners es their l:eg-aJ buslness r-,rlC:cs'S. U such viclallou ls Hot oCor,·e-ctert to In'i!" satisfacdon of to-e- Uomruissioncr ,,·jthin thilly d3YS ofl.r (ho date slI·,h ",'i"" 13 m~lIed 01 wlthh, such [urther time as lh~ Cemtnlssloner rcasc nably det~mHnt~S t~ Jl~'2(_'ss:t!J}" to CI}TH~c:l the vlolation, ,viUlOUL rU-tlil~( notlce the Cornmlssloncr may d:s:ci:"lr(" 2. rle[auh under this A~,"cmo"l o[[,olil,(, Oil tho dato of such declaratlon of default and upon such d~f3UII thO C<Jmml>~k)lI.t may:

(3)(1) If Utl' COi)1rni~;lor..r holds (1;. note . d~d.<c the whol. of said 'n<lebteou." hnl~edi'ld)' due and payable "0" the-It proceed \'~ith the [-orrrlQs.UT-c3 of th~ nV>rtg.,g~:

i2J H sald note i, not held h,' the Comml"ionor· nolli), the holder o( the note of such def~lIH and request holder to <ieclJ,e a dulault ~~~~r the note Ol1O mortr.o~e, and th. hold", attcr rerd~jng such notice and request, b~t no! othen v ·h:J.:..{ Hs uprtou , ma~' d!:ct~lo the whole ind!!btedn.[·ss duu, aud thereupon pr-ocicd \Ylt!t loreclocuro of t~~(:o InDi"[g~l:!."-:-, O! s...~iJt1 lh-e nott- ahd rrtortl!~~e to ~h(' C(lII~n·IH..$IQlH;l (15" provided in til~ RI2i!I,;I..l!iom·:

{l.J.j Cvn~~t al l renl-;;. and cbergos lu r:on"o;c~-iO{1; with the QP~fJt~on of Lh ... ~rojrd and me ~uch (:ulh:~Htcns (0 pa~' thu mun!;:;]f,or's- -9bii,!atl{Jll~ \tlH1~o;- ~his i\efoE;-(:rne--f1t and lJndN tiler note ano n10l.;.g3go and the f\'I?{'!!!i5iHY {!x{1'E-f1.ses. of prexc rv~~~~ !~~-=. p;:-C::f..'!t~r ~{Jd -,;,r~~1~{[fI~ t~lr:- r-r(i'}~t~

(c) Ti"lb~ fW!;s{-s:;ioi'l of ~h[' prcjcct , oti(lQ anv iH;llUr. u~ce50s;:;ry to ... ~n(Qf,:e any ri&ht-s a( tn(l QloVile($ ~w\\1nj! I)ut of Ih~~ pr(,oi(;(_~L op Col: i! tion~ tH\(1 (Ipctate- 'he prtljecl in accordance wtlh lhn lNI)lS 02' this l'~(e.~rJ\iml UhLII sucn ttrn:e as the- Cornmissioner In hi~ {H£cwlion dccermlnes thi'lt lh" O\ ... ·IH!U are C$rdn 1[1 s pcsltlon to op-e-r3t.e rho prt1jt'c.:t il1: accordance wilh tht'" IN-tH'i 01' this. Al'!rc('rll~nt and in c(.impliantc wlth the requirements of the note and mott1:l:aee~

rtl) . H-ppty to any court. State 'Or Fc derel, fOf specltlc perfQrrlltL-no;~ of thls A";'IIi't"hl<?I'L for an ji\i'Jr.~(iQn .:J.~;]i';1'i-t .ltjY vlotarton O(tll'{> t\~rC'l'llwlH~ lor Ih~ ilpp(l~nLlTicn{ of a recclver to toke Q\'I:!(" ilnd operate th~ project in :H: -e u{dJ.ilci-> v,'ith lhI' nnms o! the .Agr-e(,II1!!nt~ ~_J{ {£Jf 5th:h other rl'U~[ ,15 molV h~ nppto;i'liliH£t-. sirh~;:: \1")(> t~~jur_~' [0 [tar Ccrunncsf oncr :lt~~in·~ (rom ;J l1i.'fO!H~( nuder ;)l1Y Df H~o! t~!m~ 'Of (h.i:"; A~r\·';'"".IH!1lt- wQ.\l~cl tor: in;;-pftr3btv fI?Hl {h~ «mount or damaqe \';auld ue difHcuft to ascertain;

12. ~\'j f·~c-"ntr for till: payrnern dll~ under this .il:.!l~rlier.f to tile '("~¢f'.'e fund fur {Cf>hJ..'~nwnb,. and !o ~11f;~r<: Lh~ Cumriih,)~vr.:H h~'·.""\J'St' or: his l1;ibilU.~· undue tho endorsement o( the noto f-or iUSUf31\t1l-.;lndas $c;!cuTlty (or lhe other obiir,ol;QItI under (II!~ M1C<tnWILlh. Owners !"'I'~ctl\\!ly Msl~1. pledge and hlOr!~,g~ i~' tlio C"mmls;lon.' lholr rleht< h:~ ltH" f('n~. 'P:(-{}fi t::i. ill~ome Dnd ~hal~c;. of w1"H'l\"~ r ~{ln ,;vh ich they mtly [f:C"E-t't(:" 9r be ~n li11t! d to ~ l'c21\'~ ((i.:.m t~o:: .,,,",,11iol\ 0( (h~ mort~og"d prop.rty, Mlbjecl, hQw~\'~r, 10 any assicnmc<,l of Tcnls i~ ltle imuTed mortg~~. !~(~n~d to h("ldn~ r"ui il dchu~t i$ :ir--:=wf'd I.mdet tt;ls i\gt~elllontt h()w~\~Q[" pe(~l\IS516n is ~mflt~d to OWll~B to coned aod .. c<~'n ~'Id~( tho pTO"['io,\', of (hi' l,glecmcnl "len r~tlB. ~'mills, ir:C<il"e, ~ro!l char~"l. but l!pOn defJull thl, jlOm1:" ';lln is lo""i~.l.d a, 10 _11 ti'L\ts du~ o. ~!)1I.o1cd lIwr,"C(~ •.

~~} h~1or~e3!{~u in(:lud~s 1-'Deed (if ')tJ.fif') "C1'~tl1;'1 MougagC"~ \ and ilny otr4cr ;iet~riiY i~n thc\ n9[i,: idc;rntifll!d ht';dn~

.nd "l"Ido"~d f<)( Illmro"r;~ QI h~lrl1;y the Gomml<~lo"'r; -

:.-

.~.

609 \'l1\ThtrT .r;mUTED P,>\IU'NE1tSHTP, "'f> Citi.:> l.i.I<ii.b:;:<5. parttl2ru'J.p

Hy ~Q'o:,.~ng., an 0hio QWJ?2I~ and sole saner-a] O~li{f-1l"r

SECRETARY OF HOliS!NG AND URBAN f)EVRLnl'~mNT ;;cling hy and through the ASSISTM~T SECRETARY fOR ['iOUSiNG-f-EDBRAL HOUB.IN<..: CO~IMI.s$IONER

B,' ~'\~o..J/My)_J£;~g~"v_J./~

J!~!11 al'f~:Jd Age.Nt

s-:r.:l{(E IT Gn:o

~·/..[i(-o .l/5::£. L'CUi:·n~Yt SS~

.~ 'fn(:;!- fon~·-:}r..·:d~ng ins l;.t-~Er~.nt \'i"as ack/y.,),ri'J.C"-4s:R;~:1 b8'fcJ..~t; IT@ this ~ ffi day of

41J.~J,';J I 198B by H. B.u:l:.ley Sha',t;., l?r.esident of S11o,,<;; .81.Hd~s, Inc" an Ohio

(;CI11:01"<\1;ion <,n.:~ tl!"" 5:}le g=rc~. p::u:tnar in 609 W(llnut J.J.roit~ partnership, an Chio Jjlm.t.6:.'i p:u:tjj.';:i)hip, on ~'jalf of sai,..;l. COLP:'!; .. 'o/'>ll and pa.1~g!£;'.rghip.

!/cZ4~ \;~~~~=--/ .. ~---~- .

. f5&.-ti:y PnbliC .-

ram J~ ~jR.\US-~, ;li~rew ~1 l~~] . HQTJiRY.Ptl~~IC~&T;"W. O;:'Ql-CICl idy p=-iriC"i!~~:~ h.,)-o; 1;-] (".'I;'~ri\'tl;._,_, d=l1.,",. $!i..:tlon 14)1.03 n. c.

. ~.

._._.--

t

"

0_\

0-

! - .. -:

H·~ ··:-'lGi·i~ur:'_'~ ~~·Oj)rny" !n~·III::h v , :dl ~1!Lip:rly_ n·~L :J("~:~nil~ [If mi.'\f'Q rO"-NO;;-O b~- ih!' m~.i(I(:I?~· or mO~ll?a~('$ ~-I;r."I.,I!m~ 'IfW m:\~' ('f'lC]lH"\'\1 for Inwf'::I~'~" or h.·lt! hy the t.cmrnisslcncr:

(fJ "I'rr)jn t " i.o(1udl"~~ IIH" tn(]t(~.a~r·d r,ropc-rl)-' oll.d i1U iH QthN "s5'['l~ or whatsoever nature or whfn·:..-':1~'t.rr S-Jtuatr u~d In or owned by 'h~' b-u~in!'~s conducted on ~'Jio mort~a~l"d prOpt;'rly. which bnsin'llss is to pro-\·id[··hOu'im~ aiid mhn such <'l.tll\·hi('~ ?-.I" arr inrid('lH:.1 urcectu;

IL) .AU sums du~. Of (iI:r1cnUy required to b.., p atd uucer the a-rms of any mo.n~n.!:Et or note jFJ~UJ('rl or hdd by thE' Feder ... ,! Housing Commi;;~j()nN;

(jj, IJI amQunl'i requirdd to be- dcposncd In tnt" rI;Sen:~ fund for replacements;

(Iii) All oh\i~.lion' or ~h" projert other IhJO the nlUn~;gc insured orl1.1d b)' tho CommissIoner unless (unds for pllynlL'nl .. H" ,S'::-l aslde 01' dclennent of payme-f1l hl15 bHU'a approved by tho Cornmlssloner;

nin 'nl~'l puuion 01 remals \',hit·h must nt· rcmiltC'd 1(1 [he Cat(lrni!>srol"J{-.r in accordance whh Pat3:!!r;lph -l rll. tlUt no', ~.«t uuc,

(i!} "1~I?~irhlf'1 F1.PI:'('~pt~·· n:~·Hi-'; rln~' '.-<:l~;'l "'m;,i!~~~~ .::~I IIIP ~Jlfl o( "" 5J:~111:-1tH~lt;d or i'i1l11i-l';';' fiJ;_<"d porlod ilClt't d.~:d-ll-Clill~ lrcm surplus r:;t~h the amount or al! dl."Hibmwlls {'."i lh.Jt It:-!m Is dt'litll;'d below and ~.~ 1imtl(·d.b~· p~.~,~.i!I'"o:lN~ Gf{-I h.!:di'fd;

{t'l "Dt ... ~ lihi.Jt~ol'i: I' )m'J.n:. .:J_I1V wjtl~dr.).~·; .... 1 Of 'i'J~;lnl! uf (:,js-h or i1~1\' :;l5.!r~\s. of ttl{' projcct. fncludh::t~ me ~oe~r~j!:J.~~on of cash UI olc·,ls tor sul>c,cQUl'Il! II"Hhdrawallrlthin til\' limiloliol\S Dr r"r~~,.plt ~I~J hereof. and ~xrlu~w~ pa)'mrnl for i".l("l"bl~ expenses Il1cld.III to tnu oporatton and matntcnanec or the projrct:

(i) "Income" m •• ns tho Poro" "",,",1 lnc cme of thc' le,,,,,1 from all 'QUI,"' bofote tex es ~rI~ withhOldIng, MIU cil-In~ dh'N \Q exclusions allowed Ij~' rho C-Qlwnls-s~OIlE'I;

{kJ "Default' H1~~:Ws..1 d(·f~.IIH d{o(,ji)).i.·U hy th~1 Cotnruissicner ~~·hcn. 3 violatton CJ[ UHs !~fo'.:e-mt;!llt b Hot corrected t o hi'S O;:;HI~ri'l.;;III')tl wi l hin th e tirnv nllowcd by lhi5- 1\9"(e-('ulellt or sucn (urthcr tlme us may b~ iMolH"U br -hc-Cornmisslcncr ~rli:·t wrls ron n()li(::'l.

)-1. 111i, In,t,l1lJwm ,hall ~ill<l, and the lJ.ncfil, 'h"lI inure to. (h~ "'p.d! .... O\\'n~I>.lh.lr h"ll>,lcgal «pr.;."tath..", exccu{Q1SI admlnlstrators. successors ~ri QH1re or IHh·I.~$l. and nsslgns, and t-o the Commhsloller 3lld hi;,; successors so lo:ne.t!~ the:

COrHtLlf"I. of mljng3~t! Insurance couttnecs to effect. and dUTlng such turtbor urne il:~ thE' CcmmlS$~oll"&r ~'I:a;U 'tit! thl' owner,

holder, or rclrisurer of the mQtl.g_jge, or QhUga:re-tl to r·~ln.!;t!ri' th<! n)on,~~gl2. .

15. O1l1m; \\,(,[[;,)11 that tll w h~<~ MI. an d wlll not. execute anj' other il~rC~n1~pt \,ilh-~IO\'jSI{)ns conllJrli~tory of, or In oppo~Ilion to, I ne plO:-i~Ions liNe!)!, M,t\lhM i in an), oven I, the rC'l'Jlr¢nlCli~~ "f-th,h /Ijlrc~m~ilt are paramount and controlll Jl~ as to th. rluhls and Qhlig"UollS ~oL forth and '\Ip",~~d~ ~h)' other requlremcnts In (M,r1ct tlt~rew!th.

ll>_ ---fiw iunHditr of '")' rI""~C, 1'",( or provision or illis ,\srecUl~nl shall not effect tI'e_ \'~_lId!IY o[ tl1ercrnainillG portions

1lWleor. The use ~r any ~<nd~r ~h,dJ be applicable to all SOlldclS. -.

1"1_ Th,- (ollo"iIlC (Jwncts: 60~rl'lillnUt J.til}li1;:~-l:'a.lc*nei~sh.iPi an- qi:i,~.J.~l)1t~l l,Ml:l:nerl.>hif), the pax-tHen:; of suid pil,-ctr.ership, m)~ tJ~k i:~SFi¢!:Jv~ ~4¢§.tii9t$iWij,:rs w,d -Clssigns, do not 3;<Umr personal )hlhili"ly for p3rJ!1~nls <lue under thenote ~n<11iJD'~2~i~'-lQlhi!i~;~t'-_c lor replacements-or fu.

m;,((o[, not lJlldN thclr cGnh~):fxCCPt' . - - - - .. -- - - '- - -

{{l.~ ({'ol Iunds or prop ertj- of.ihfl prQ}('-ct {;oi"jjlug In~.D" tllcjdl_;:mds \'1hldl·~·QY m,>-,)j·o"tSf';"'h"roo,f.;illi<'~--

~Q [.:lain; ;)'I1d .

(b) {Qr lh~ir 01',-,] ~~l~ ~nUd~cd5 or R~~S end 1i~?ds oe t1\11tln~hlel1

J~eti:·-Qrr . . .. ... -. .

H-l '.rE-S'Nl,'vi'lY' \'aEROOF ( J: have lemtmto subscr ilxxi r(,y name and affL,<:~j rTj ()ffic~".d. :l~aL on the day and year Last, aforesn:!d,

'!'his lnst.nm"'nt Prep.ll'ed By:

Gaxy E. Davis, AtWi.-ney at la", VOX'./s, &>.ter, SCy<W;)ur and l?'e<l~ 52 PJ.:l.st Gay Street:

P. O. !lOx 1008

COh:.[I],,--U8, Oh:i.o 43216-1008

1£AilL G. COX, U<>l"'y P<1~~!" , .. ~.~~r~~Q.€.?~r!fIe;J~f[

SCHEDULE A

Situated in tho County of Hamilton In the State of Oh Lo , and in I:h~ City of Cincinnati, and bounded and described as fol1ol-lr;:

TithC'C 11 (Parcel Nurober 77-2-162)

AU of Lot No. I) and in Square 2 on the Plat of Subdivision made by John S. Gane and recorded in Deed Book Nl,t", Pag.e 58g ill the Reaor.dec':> Office of Hamilton county, Ohio: Saicl Lot: being 17 feet in £;;on;;' on t:he \lest sid.a of Halnut tH.:~:eet and ~~t-;;n{1ing back VC3t.h·ardly bett,::cnr! panllJ.el J.inos ana along the south sid!') of cano Alley 94 feet in d~pth same width In rear as in front.

'i'Rite'l' B O?a (cel Numbe;: 7'1-2-152)

k'«l:t 0[: r,ot No. 14 in SqU<lt:e ;: of Joqn S. Gano's Subdivision, a pl~t of which is recorded in Deed Book uNn, Page 689, in the Recorder's Oft;tce ot Haln;i.lton county, Ohi.o , and more pa r t i> CUIM.'ly deacr ibf:d as [01101'16: tleg~,lInil1g .'It (1 point in the aoubh line of Gano Si::I:eet: 23 feet east of tho eaat line of Lodgc$t(set, thence runn~ng castwBrdly along tha ~outhYirie of Gano stl:eel: 2"1) feet to t.he nor t.heas.t cor,ner of s<d.'~ tot No~ 14: ~he(tce south along ~h~ ~~~t lin~ of 6<!i,l Lot No, 1.4 a distance of 1(; feet; thence r unn Lnq \-les!;liardly ana paJ;il.UeJ. to .Gano str.-eet 24 feet J:lnd thenG" runn Lnq north\lil,cdly and r->i\(alll'l~, 1-1 it; 11 Lodge street, 16 fee 1:; to tll;:

Sou th 1 ine of GallQ St reot and place or beginning.

'l'l1.i\C'L' C ([>lIT.'cel Nl1mber 77-.<2;-·220)

par.t of Lot No. l4 Ln Square 2 011 l;h", plat ·of Subdivistol) made by John s_ ceno and I{ocotoed ill ne(!a Book "11", l:"'uge lifJ'.l in the R.AC()I·o.8r'~, Office of Hamilton county and more pmrticularly d~sC"r.ibed as foUowst ~QfiI[liencing at th~l south",,,,-sl: cc rne r of cano S.tl~<:)t?t an.d r,odgo 1\lley; t hencc south on the f!(lst'l;lide.ot Lo:dge Alley J(> feel; i 'thel1(;e east and p.:: r !:Ill e 1 ·t·i I Ui (lmw Stl:eet, 23 f€q(: I t!)elico no rth ·and parullhl ~Iith [,odget"\lley 16 feet to the sou+h line of cano St.r·eet·; thence west along the south 11ne of Gano Str.e~t 2J fe~~ to tbePl~ce of beginning.

TRlIC').' A (Parcel Number 77-2'·164 and a po r t Lon of 165):

Leasehold Parcels

Situate if1 CiuGiflflaci, Hamilton county, Ohio, and mor s particularly described au follows, ViR:

All that lot of land on the west aide of l<laJ.nut street commenc Inq 70 hgt l:lo~tn of Sixth StI8el: at the north line of lot leased by r~dl~ard Dodson i:o H!ch"td S. Hacon, by lease (eco[ded in LeaSe Book 7, page 285, Hamilton coun+y , Oi'!io, r.~cor<l51 then(!c uo e cb ~~OWJ th'" 14"(;31.: l.ine of "ZaInu\: street 36 feet/ thence WC8tlllHdly <It right aogler; to IQall,ut Street 94 feet; thence southwardly parallel rli.th Iralnut street to the north Li ne of. said B<'\(Jon's lot; thence along the said north line to the place of beginning.

'fRAC'l' B (Parcel Nmnber 77--2-1(3):

All that: lot of land on the H;;;;i: 5ide i)f W"lnu(: Sheet, b~ing part of ):.ot: NQ. 3 of Gano'2 r;~lbd~visi<"m" 8e~linriing at toe notthc<l!~t cor ne r ot: sa.Id ~ot on t{f.!,"4lI~t Street; th'2rtCe r:"unning 86UI:h ~!~ the \o:"'~-5t aide F)~ walnut stteet 35 feet to the Una of the; lot above describea; -thence \~est along the north

1 inc of said lot 94 f':!el 1,:0 the west line of (,ot No.3; thence n().'~-.t.heI:ly a~O!l9 :sA~d tlest line 35 fee'l: to t11~·l)Or:'·th ~lest:. cor nez of sa i6 Lot No. 3) ~h~nc6 eastw.~dly alohg the north Ullf) ol: sr.,hl :tot NO.3, 9'i ·f.e~!:; to t he Place of beginning.

'l'HACT C (Part of Par.cel Nurnber 17-2-165):

That certain pOtl~on of ·teal estate;

Beginning at a Eo~nt in the ~j~s-t l.ine of 1'l<1~.~l-'t .. 8t!: ~?t .09 fo;!?t:.a_Jnche;J.nptthqf.the i::loi;·bh'Hlle o~ st%l,:-l1··$ti:Ijl:.<:lt;1':hel~c..e:~~~~tlqardlY p<'q:?litel vHh $hth.Sti;:eet9A fffeJ;-rth:encc iloit}I)I;tp.lly . par~J.leJ.. ,~:Ui:h··\qall1.Ij.t.;Stte::~\;:A inch.~·sl. thencf:-'ea,s(:~I<l.~:9~Y;P~t?,-,t~~~j"l;t::t:!1 '·S).)(tb st.eet,94 fl?.ct to·the:w:est.'I.kne of Nalnut

Ui;4i~ii:gitJltii~~~~~r:rt~f~~J~~~~t'~~··· .

P.:l,rt of Lot No .. 11 in .square t;C-1I 2 Ganols subdiv:C;iiml, cQi;:\,,-tencing "t; 1.1 p<>int at the no;::thvest cc rner af ~",id Lot ~To. 11 on the south sidf! of 1J~~jh") Sr1t.'eet bet.f,.-.:ee.n V int2!- and (-ralnut St.r"'6tG, thence eas1;.w<.t.dly on the

south o;ide of. Gano stre'~t 27 fe~t; trumee scut.h~ab(}ly en feet; t.hence -';'If!.s.tt;f.~E(H.y 4 f{~et; thcflce HIlI:t.hwad!1:v' a1<:'ng the );,1; ick wall Ie feet, tn",n<.:e ~est~,iirdlY al,(m~ t:\"le bricr. H~ll 0;;::- fe·Iic£; 23 f..2·~~t f>':! the ;.~~~L ;_ltt~ uf. ~ald

lot; th$"nee n(.~}:"thgiH:dly 2,lQf!g cno ~;est 5i(113

of sa:id [,(,1; 70 E<t(d:: to the pluce of bEglnn!ng.

<i 'I

}\11 that let of land b-aing pa.r t, of r.oc No. 11 .. Gallo;::; Sc..~t-...aiV"~sion:, BOOK t'.:fi!:, l?age 689( b0gi.nni!!g i'lt " point on tha south J_ine of GanG Stre8t at tne northeast co~ner of said Lot NO. III the,,(:* >:(t'Jthf2rIy ahmg the east

1 in~ of ('ot No, 11- 62: feet to the north line or: !:h" l<)t cOl\vf:yeo 1;:0 1'1. [4. tlhite, Book 554, pag2- 366; therl~~€- w<ast""a-ccill' ;;,long WhHe' s north line to the easl;. lin~ of Lot conveye.d to g.Q;ry ~~v'1 .JQhn '~~ .. B:r.aa.y~ Boc~ 907.[ pag; 356~ thence not:ther:ly along BI:ady;s east 1.hw 82 floet t:() the so!)th lil1'~ of (limo Strest)· !:hG-n r cc (:.;!.~ter:l~'" .:::l!j:~tg th!'.: $~)\.i.tb lin~ of GanD $t.~~.;:~ :~Q £~2::: tot· t:1~ plac!:: of e."!-ginnin·;J ~

e ,

Olo}fll![ shall Bliltabl ish or continue to main tu in a reserve fund for replacements by the alloaa tion to such re ae r ve fund in a s e pa r a Ee account with the mortgagee, or in a safe and responsible depository designateo by the mortgagee, concurrently with the beginning of payments towards amortization of the principal of the mortgage insured or held by the Commillsione): of an amount equal to $986.00 per !nonth unless = different date or amOllnt is approved in writing by the Commissioner. Such fund, whether in the form of a cash aeposi~ or invested in obligations of, or fully guaranteed a6 to prinCipal bYI the United StQte~ of Amerio~, shall at all times be uncle): the con trol of t he mor t9age(J. DisbUrsements from such fund, "hather [or the purpose of effecting replnoamant of structU.:al eIO)nentl) and h)echahicll.l e qu Lpmen t of the project or. far any other PUr.P9SB; may be mB~e only after receiving the consent in writing of tho Commidsioner. In the event that tlw owne r iil un!li;>l,~ to make a mortgage note parmen!; on the doe Cl(lte and thaI: j?«yment cannot hu nli10t=' or b~~"" to the du~ day of i:ht:! next such irH3tailm",nt or Nhen the mortgagee has agceed to foreg~ making an eleation to assign the nor.1.:.9&ge to Hun based on a monetary default, or to withdraw an election

a l r eadv made, the Comml-ssioner; is «tltholCl zed (:0 in5txuct the JlI9ttgii.ge(.> to withdl'at! funds El:om tile Re:l8,;Ve for Re.tJl.at1cments to be

appllBd to the.mor in qrder to

pte vent or cUtG the • In Q6aitiQ~, in

the event of·a· in thQ ·termR of the

ch the Lo <'I ii has been

:'-'."

SCHBDU.LE B

This Schedule !l is att<lcneg to an;:] fOJ;:ms a part of thu Reguli;ltory 1\gr<:>ement, dated ;11.4-,1 07 y' .' 1908, by and bflt~~ep.n 609 h'alnut f"imit&od Partne);sl1ip and the 8ecrel;a~y of !lousing ana

Urban Development, &nd the following provisions 3r<;! incQrporated

in said Regulatory Agreement to the same extent 8S if fully

rewritten therein:

.:i

paragraph 2.(a) of this Regulatory Agrer"menl;., FH1\

Porm 2466, is deleted in its entirety, and replaoed by the folLow i nq :

.-;

r

;' ... : ...• ;.

day of 1,!ay, 1988, by ilnd between 609 ~lalnut Ioimi ted Pal:tnersh ip, an Ollio limited p az t ne r sb Lp having its p r Lnc Lpa L place of h.usi-

nc ss at 1225 Dublin Road, Columbus, Fri:m!~lin County, Ohio 43215,

he z e Lnaf t e r culled "tlor:tg1lgor," <lOa the UnIted States of Ame r Lca ,

represented by the 9.<0r.e1.:.,.1:Y of Hous i nq and Urban Development,

acting by and thr.ou\Jh the Assistant: Secr,etary for. HOUl'Li.ng - c~ederal Housing COlflrol ss roner , hereinafte:r called "Hortgag2e I fl

WITNESSETH!

WHEREAS I [·lido-Towne j\ssocl..ates I an Oh io limi ted partnership, executed and delivered to Kentuckl' 1>!ortgag'3 Company, Ino ••

its certain note dated October I, 1971, in the face amount of

$3,130,700.00 (he:reinafter called the "Noten). whiah is secured

by a mortgage of even date therewith e:<ec\\ted and delivGt<ed by

the said ~!id-'rol';ne Associates to the s a Ld Kentuc;ky Hot tg8.ge

Company f Inc. r f ilea for: r eoo rd on Qc tober l, 1971 ana r eo o r d ad

in Volume 3835 of th~ ~Qrtgage Records of HBmilton County, Ohio.

al; page 1055, coveling c€:(tain real p.operty (tho "Proj&ct")

situated in the City of Cincinnati, county of HamiltOn and State

of Ohio and nio r e partiCU1.arly d e s c r f be d in saia I!1m:t.gilgo (tbe

said mor.l:gag8 beiu\]" hereinafter called the "(,lo;:t9age") 1 and

l·mEREAS, the said Hid-'l'ol-l(l", Associ,a tea, Ke n t uoky

Mortgage Company, Inc. Dn~ the Fede.al Housing CommlsBione~

entered inl;o a !'Iodifical:ion Agreement by ~lhich the Note and

HOI: I:.gage were aill€M.l«O in certain r e speo c s , wh Lch Ho{;if Lea t Lon

lIgr.eE1J1\~mt Has dated oc cobar 5, 1.911, Hle~ for r.ecord on October 5, 1971 and redO:i;de~i~1:vq+?Jnl;)(~:~:8?,,9,f l,;he 110rtgage Records. of HamiltoJ)', Coultty. -6hio',,'ai~ 'pagl'!,:1l0r:MCl

'. ~.c . "-"--';':".;..-.i:~-~-::'>-.:.-:.-'. : -.: ;,:-.' ~.:.'-- =r : .: ".''':~''''''~--'-''-,-:-:'.-:

WHB~ASfs~'~~':r?;~~: :~i1(1;l:!6_i~9A9~o .. w~~~.f urther, ,~\~eI)Mq bU'

~::;,:,~::;;c.::~~~;;::;~'~~;i~;~~;~.i'¥b<X>S.' . 1013.0'

··«jMr;,~~~~/::'l~~eJ?,t~:<J'~ftm~n.~'}r$:~?~l¥J;.9::t:·'h¥W,: <:?tIV,e?~d to, t;h0 ,Hoi 1;:9 (l.g6.t; " 'tht;! • .f~e':¢JI:ffP~',~t:t~.w~~::,tiCl'.;thl;l'J:'~ei:1U;,C':p0!-,~y,',4~SC}; i.ped, ..

taneously herewith (herelnofter called the ~New Regulatory Agree-

i

i

J

1

i ~

.

\'IHERBAS, the ~!ort.gagee, by v Lr cue of mesne assignment!!,

~nd

is presently the ho}.(3er of the Note and r'!oltgagel and

l'lHBRBAS, the HortgI.!9(ll: has entered into a ne~l regula-

tory agreement with the Secretary of Housing and U~ban

DC'18 Lopmen t, ac t i ng by and through the Pederal Rousing

Corflmissioner, dated Hay 24, 1968 <Ina being recorded simul-

lnent"); and

NHERBAS. the I'tol;tgagor and 1101;t9agee are mutually desirous of further arr,ending the f.\ortgag& in the marmet hereJ. .. ···

after set forth;

NO~l, THEREPORE, in cous Lde r a c Lon of the foregoing, the

mu t uaI ilg"'eement;r; her:einafter set fOl:th and the consent of the

Secratpry of Houoing and Urban Development, acting by Dnd through

the Federal Housing Commissioner, to the transfer: of the real

property described in the Hor.tgoge, the parties heceto do hereby

a s s Lqn s , that (:he t·10):'tg1199 shall be, and the e ame h'~reby is,

further amended by l.ncorporatin9 tllerein and making a pa r t;

th8reo£ the New Regulatory Agreement, that on and after the date

used in !;hE" Nortg<>ge sllall me an che He'" Regulatory /\grE:cment, and

tlwt I.lpon oe!:ault under \:he Nel1 ReguJ.aCQfY Agreement as f;pecHiecJ

th('l:ein and upon request by the Peder"l Hou~dng commi ss Iono r 1 the

Mortgagee may Qec16lB the Mortgage in default and the whale of

th,~ lnd(ibteoIH!5s H8cured thet:eby to be due and payable.

It 1';: ftldl1(H' ~g}:eed th,::,'\; not.hing in l;h~~ "gr:eement

Scc(etal;Y of HQ\.Is:ing. an . .;! ut'hatl,. Deve!ol?Ji\",nb.rnaY:··~<:Iv:e to .seek judio i a L r:ecou~fi.efpranJ. b,'Bileh (j:t the·ne9~1·!'\~·9rYl'>:g~eement. th<d: may h8ve ocCt1\;tear~ior to,· 01: .m·al occur 51Jb~Ggi.letit 'to, the dal.:eof this .·hgie.f~j~~i:it ': Xn i;h~~Vql)t t;hat tl)¢ r;;¢.Qi=~,tilrx ofH9uaing and trrben Dev~.ipp!!l.i.dt .\lli tiatP-~;m !lction fOl.'.b't·eadh of t.he

""'";0··".··

Requlatrycy A9~eem~nt and [eCOye~8 funds, aither on the Secre-

ta~-y' s mm behalf or on behalf of the project OJ: the Mortgagor,

those funds may be applied, at the d i ac re t Lon of the Se"cretary of Housing ("lnll Ucban Development, to payment of the delinquent

mT,O'.!I1ts due under the Horl:gage or as a partial pr epaymen t of the

~he parties hereby further agree that nothing herein

contain."d s ha I L in any Nay impair the Note, the Mortgage, the

modifications the~eof heretofore mentioned, or any other security

no\'/ held for the indebtedn"ss evidenced by the Note ana secured

by the lior tgage, 0;: alter, \"mi,-,~, annul, va ry or affect an}' pro-

I]i s Ion T cond i Han 01: coven an 1; therein I except as here in specif-

1Gally provided, or affect or impair any rights, pOW~XB Ot

remedies under the Note, the !,jartgage, or the said ~odi£icationr;

thereof, it helng the intent. of the p<lrties hereto that the l;E!);ms

and provisions of. the Note and Hori:gage shall continue 1n full

The Mortgagor, for itself and its BUGCaSsors and

assigns, covenants and agrees that, in orQer to ensure that the

Project will oontinue to operate in a manner that will provide

rental hOllsing on terms at least; as advantageous to exis!;ing qlld

future tenants as the termm cequirQd by thQ Section 236 program

under whioh the original mortgag& was made O£ insured, pur~uant

[;0 Sec\:lon 1.01 of the lIousJ,ng and commun Lcy Deve Lopmen t Act of

1987, t he indebtedness aeou r ad by c he 1~or:'tg1lge may be prepaid

ei t;her in \~ht~}_e o r in p<I r t pc Lor to the final matud ty de te of

Decamb. 1, 7.013, subject to the approval of the Secretary_ The

Mortgagor, fo[ iLaalC and ita successors and assigns, ooyonants

and ag l;(;!eS to (!;,:<e;CU (;.0 any ?,n(1 f;.l:11 nolt <:l!lO xqholmi S,wtion a

_ [I IJ II S l,l!g; ."~"~~J}ya ~.ce;Cq!Y~~~~?~~:i#!>gfJ:?:ii,f)~.~~~~:~#!J~~-\;<;@~8l?~,~~ ¥ I;m~J\ I;

O'UQ;,~jh1;:'i~~1~~~!~~i~~j~'if~,"~b,l~~~;g5;~~~;;~~\;r~~:;~\,!,g •• ..

iI1S~.J;'.lJlj(E!bt: :b~"h~~:f;:.W/{ii'i~~4i~:;"'~uiih~"d";>~~ "

--8:lI,f4t~ Q_ v<L. a 7!;dbC

t~0tary P~\.)li~~. -, ,. "'$l:~if!li

" 9ir't?

~,1991

609 \,ALNUT r.,J.:{-I!T1W PARTNBRSHIP r 1:In ohio limited partnership

e}_:ecut~d by its duly ~uthOLizl?d r epr e s e n c a t Lve as o f the date

~ir3t ~bove menti.oned.

President

'I'lIE U I'fBD STNl'~S OF' i\I-!ERICA, Represent~d by the secr.etary

or Housing ana tlt:bu!l Development. Acting by nnd Through the Assistant SecEetary [or HOl1sing - Fedel'al Housing Commissioner

STA'l>B or QllJP .

com.'i'Y OF _Gl&~.t"',,£?f.0'.d__~.1 83:

Before !TIe, it Nol:<lcy Public in (lnd ~or aaid county,

per soni111y al?pe,H'od H. Burk lei' show€: f i::he Pres ioent of ShO·,le Builders, lnc., an Ohio cor por ati i on and the sole general partner In 609 1'laJ.nut r,iJ'f\tt~d !'(lJ:'tnershlp, an Ohio limi ted par tne r sb Ip , known to me to be the per scm deflcr Ibed in anti who execu1:ed the £ot"e90in9 Ina t r umen t , who <lcknmlledged the ellacution of c he same 8S his voluntary acl and deed for and as the voluntary act and deud of said cDrpo~ation and partnership, for the usee and purpp~es thetein mentioned.

IY8ll.

XN r:C::'r'n·;ON' l'iHEREOF I I have hereunto aubac r ibed my ar:th:cd I:;)' r>ft;ici(il r;cal Llils cf!!;N'1 day of .>(I~.~ __ ,

-.---.;- :.

it-l \'7i:TI11lSS I'IHEREOP., ] 'l1a'i,f, 2(0 IZ_ day ot',:J~~-lr/ .

Exhibit B

:xJRTH STREET, SUITE 200, COWMB(JS, OHIO 43215

(614) 481-8106

FAX (6

BUILDERS, INC.

April 7.2009

Notice ofIntent to Prepay Metropole Apartments FHA #046-44084

.,

Dear Resident:

..

• i-.

We, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership, the Owner of Metropole Apartments, have decided to pay back the loan for this property. The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban . Development (HUD) requires that owners provide at least a I 50-day notice to HOD, the State or local government, and to each tenant of their intent to prepay their mortgage. This letter meets .. ~ .. that requirement by notifying you that we intend to prepay our mortgage held or insured by HUn·· effective on September 4, 2009. If you have comments, please submit them to the officelncated . at Metropole Apartments no later than 30 days from the date ofthis letter. All comments Will be reviewed and, where appropriate, a response will be provided. Prepayment of the mortgage

could result in an increase in rent. .

We have notified HUD of our intent to prepay our mortgage.

If you have any questions, please call theon-site manager at Metropole Apartments, or contact Donald Beebout, the owner's representative, #t:45 N. 41 Street, Suite 200, Columb-ia,

OH 43215, phone 614-481-8106. For additional mforihation you may also contact th- .

HUD representative for this property, Ms. Michelle Whitfield, at 614~469-5737 ext

Sincerely, 609WALNUTLIMITEDPAR1l

BY: SHOWE BUILDJ;:RS, INC Managing Gf-r -- ", Ti_ .... _

~

Andre" Vice PI

AES/mls

Page 1 of (~',

• \ j

MEl'IUmQl£.&\fARTMENTS HD.MillRf(;(tN"O, 0ittJ:.0t4084 Off j ce Doc ~f09=Ol~7052 TgpQ: DE

Fjl~d= 11/03/09 12:43'37 PM $~4.00

LIMTI'ED WARBANTYDEED Off .Rec. ~ 11280 Q1962 F I8 4 472

6 WALNUT LJMITED PARTNERSIYTD Obi I' 'ted hi th lII!l1l1JllUlIIlIlflllHlnlmllUillfllll1l

09 .Ill.£, an o nmr partners P. e Grantol!,12g0019b2F~

in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid to

it by AZEOT,ROPIC PARTNERS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, the 'Grantee, whose tax mailing address is clo Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation, 1014 Vine Street, Suite 1420> Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, -does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN AND SELL to the' Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described premises situated in the City of Cincinnati, County of Hamilton and

State of Obi a and as identified as follows: .

"

(SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF)

. .

Prior Instrument reference: Deed Book 4410~ page 1573, Hamilton County, Ohio Records (parcels 162, 152 and 228}

To have and to hold said premises, with all the privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging, to said Grantee and its successors and assigns forever.

This Deed is being executed and delivered by the Grantor and accepted by the Grantee upon the express understanding and agreement that the above described premises are encumbered by the lien of a mortgage from Mid-Towne Associates to Kentucky Mortgage Company, Inc. dated October 1, 1971, and of record in Mortgage Record Volume 3835, page 1055, as modified by a Modification Agreement among Mid-Towne Associates, Kentucky Mortgage Company. Inc. and the Federal Housing Commissioner dated October 5, 1973, and of record in 3982, page 10, as further modified by an unrecorded instrument between Mid-Towne Associates and Kentucky Mortgage Company, Inc, dated November 5, 1973, as further modified by an unrecorded Modification Agreement between Mid-Towns Associates and Federal National Mortgage Association dated January 26, 1975. and as assigned by Kentucky Mortgage Company, Inc. to First National Bank of Louisville by an Assignment of Mortgage dated October 1, 197) and of record in Assignment and Release Volume 159, page 977, as further assigned by First National Bank of Louisville to Kentucky Mortgage Company, Inc. by , an assignment dated March 9, 1972 on the face of said mortgage,as further assigned by

Kentucky Mortgage Company, Inc, to Federal National Mortgage Association and further assigned by Federal National Mortgage Association to the Un,~L~1til~:.'i.t)M.~n:t1nerlt~~~~'!?J.Housing and Urban Development by an Assignment dated ~teWIUl}tI9P.J record in Assignment and Release Volume 335, page 1688;~w.cm~ Recorder ofHarnilton County! Ohio.

This conveyance is also made subject to the lien of real .,,,t,,fMmiliinn &l1lci1D~afthrneI1its assessments that are a lien hut are not presently due and

11280

1962

Exhibit C

Barbera A Schofield NolaIy PIlbIIc, State of Ohio

My CommlssJon ExpIres 10-01-2011

11280

Pag\!2 of 4

METROPOLE APARTMENTS FHA NO. 046-44084

highways, zoning and building ordinances and regulations, and building setback lines, rights-of-way, easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions of record, if any.

The Grantor does hereby covenant that subject to the foregoing, it will warrant and defend the same with the appurtenances, to Grantee and its successor and assigns, against the claims of all persons arising by, under or through said Grantor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 609 Walnut Limited Partnership, by its duly authorized

representative, has signed this deed this ,26.f-tJ. day of !rlA'i .2009 ..

I

609 Walnut Limited Partnership, an Ohio limited partnership,

By: Showe Builders, Inc., an Ohio corpo .

Its Mana . at Partner,

STATEOFomo

COUNTY OF FRANKLIN: 58

Before me, a Notary Pub1ic in and for said County, personally appeared Andrew E. Showe, Vice President of Showe Builders, Inc., Managing Genera1 Partner of the Partnership which executed the foregoing deed, signed the same and acknowledged before me that he did so sign in the name of and on behalf of said Partnership as such ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~ said Partnership; and that he was duly authorized thereunto.

in Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official

seal thisJ&-In day of ~ • 2009.

_,~~~~~I!!Slaln expires:

This Instrument prepared by: Jerry Grier, Attorney at Law. Columbus, Ohio

PS9113 of 4

Order NQ, : 114336S1A

EXHIBIT A

PARCEL I (FEE INTEREST)

ALL OF LOT NO.4 AND IN SQUARE 2 ON THE PLAT OF SUBDIVISION MADE BY JOHN S. GANO AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK nM", PAGE 689 IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE Of HAMILTON COUNlY, OHIO: SAID LOT BEING 47 FEET IN FRONT ON 1liE WEST SIDE OF WALNUT STREET AND EXTENDING BACK WESTWARDLY BETWEEN PARALLEL UNES AND ALONG THE sourn sms OF GANO AUEY 94 FEET IN DEPTH SAME WIDTH }fit REAR AS IN FRONT.

f? PARCEL 77~2-162

~ .J. PARCEL U (FEE lNTEREST)

PART OF LOT NO. 14 IN SQUARE 2 OF JOHN S. GANO'S 5UBDMSION, A PlAT OF WHlcH IS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "W, PAGE 689, IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF HAMILTON COUNTY, OH[o, AND MORE PARTIOJLARLY oeSCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH UNE OF GANO STREET 23 FEET EAST OF TIfE EAST UNE OF LODGE STREET; THENCE RUNNING EAS1WARDLY ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF GANO.STREET 24 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OFSA1D LOT NO. 14; THENCE SOUTH ALONG TI-lE EAST liNE OF SAID lOT NO. 14·A DISTANCE OF 16 FEET; TliENCE RUNNING WESTWARDLY PARAllEL TO GANO STREET 24 FEET AND THENCE RUNNING NORTHWARDLY AND PARALlEL TO LODGE STREET, 16 FEETTO THE SOUTH UNE OF GANO STREET AND PLACE OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 77-2-152

PARCEL III (FEE INTEREST)

PART OF LOT NO. 14 IN SQUARE 2 ON THE PLAT OF SUBDMSION MADE BY JOHN S. GANO AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK "M" I PAGE 689 IN THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF HAMILTON COUNTY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS: COMMENCING ATTI-iE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GANQ SlREET AND LODGE AtLEY; THENCE SOUTH ON THE EAST SIDE OF LODGE ALLEY 16 FEET; THENCE EAST AND PARALLEL WITH GANO STREff, 23 FEET; THENCE NORTIi AND PARALLEL WITH LODGE ALlEY 16 FEET·TO THE SOUTH UNE· OF GANO STREET; 11iENCE WEST ALONG THE sours liNE OF GANQ STREET 23 FEETTO THE PLACE OF BEGINNlNG.

,

PARCEL 77-2-228

PARCEL IV (LEASEHOLD PARCEL)

All THAT LOT OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WALNUT STREET COMMENCING 70 FEET NORTH OF srxrn STREIn" AT WE NORTli UNE OF LOT LEASED BY EDWARD DODSON TO RICHARD S. BACON, BY LEASE RECORDED IN lEASE BOOK 7, PAGE 285, HAMtLTON COUNTY, OHIO,

RECORDS; THENCE NORTI-I ALONG TIlE WEST UNE OF WALNIJT STREET 36 FEET; THENCE . WESTWARDLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO WALNUT srneer 94 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWARDLY PARALLEL WITH WALNUT STREET ro THE NORTH liNE OF SAID BACON'S lOT; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH UNE TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.

llt(.~~"1ft PT, of

PARCEL 77 -2·1t54--\ 11.05 '

PARCEL V (LEASEHOLD PARCEL)

Tax Map • - ......... .-..:..~.......,..~....;:._-1--'

I .. v CAGIS • -+- ~....,~

Page 4 of 4

-.-~~.----------------~--~----------------------------~----------------

Order flo. : 114336alA

ALL THAT LOT OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WALNUT STREET, BEING PART OF LOT NO.3 OF GANOtS SUBDMSION. BEGINNING AT THE NORTI-IEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT ON WALNUT STREET; THENCE RUNNING SOUTH ON THE WEST SIDE OF WALNUT STREET 3S FEET TO THE UNE OF THE LOT ABOVE DESCRIBEDj THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID LOT 94 FEET TO THE WEST UNE OF LOT NO.3; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST UNE 35 FEET TO THe NORTH WEST CORNER OF SAID LOT NO.3; THENCE EASTWARDLY ALONG THE NOR.TH UNE OF SAID LOT NO.3. 94 FEET TO THE PlACE OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 77-2-163

PARCEL VI (LEASEHOLD PARCEL)

THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF REAL ESTATE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST UNE OF WALNUT SlREET 69 FEET 8 INOIES NORTH OF THE NORTH UNE OF srxra STREET; THENCE WESTWARDLY PARALLEL WITH SIXTH STREET 94 FEET; TIfENCE NORTHWARDLY PARALLEL WITH WALNUT STREET 4- INCHES: THENCE" EAS1WARDlY PARAlLEL WITH Simi STREET; 94 FEETTO ·1HE WEST UNE OF WALNUT STREET; THENCe SOUTHWARDLY WITH SAID WEST UNE OF WALNUT

STREET 4 INCHES TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; BEING PART OF LOT NO.2 OF JOHN S. GANO'S SUBDIVISION. ,

500111 PT. oFPARCEL 77-2.-165

PARCEL VII (LEASEHOLD PARCEL)

ALL THAT LOT OF LAND BEING PART OF LOT NO. 11, GANO'S SUBDMSION, BOOK "M", PAGE 689, BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH UNE OF GANO STREET AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID lOT NO. 11~ THENCE $OU11-lERLY ALONG THE EAST UNE OF LOT NO. II, 82 FEET TO THE NORTH UNE OF THE lOT CONVEYED TO M.M. WHITEr BOOK ~4f PAGE 366; THENCE WESTWARDLY ALONG WHITE'S NORTH liNE TO THE EASf UptrOF LOT CONVEYED TO MARY AND JOHN T. BRADY, BOOK 907l PAGE 356; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG BRADY'S EAST UNE 82 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF GANO STREET; THENCE EASTWARDLY ALONG 1liE SOUTH UNE OF GANO STREET 20 FEET TO mE PLACE OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 77-2-159

PARCEL VIII

PART·OF LOT NO. 11 IN SQUARE NO.2 GANO'S SUBDIVISION, COMMENCING AT A POINT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT NO. liON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GANO STREET BETWEEN VINE AND WALNUT STREETS; THENCE EASTWARDLY ON THE SOUTH SIDe OF GANO STREET 2.7 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWARDLY 88 FEET; THENCE WESJWAROLY 4 FEETi THENCE NORTHWARDLY ALONG ntE BRICK WAU 18 FEETi THENCE WESTWARDLY ALONG THE BRICK WAU OR FENCE 23 FEETTO 11iE WEST UNE Of SAID LOT; THE~CE NORTHWARDLY ALONG iHe WEST SIDE OF SAID LOT 70 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.

OEt;(;HIJ--' I i\.Ji~ A""l.C.f' IA HAMILTON COUNTY ENGINI-~~~~I{-r.~

Tax Map ~ _!..l.LJ..f.j...ll.-JL...--=-~~~

CAGIS· ""-:-~

····1

11280

04-30-'10 08:05 FROM-

Melissa. RaInier

5250 Camelot Dr Apt #f Fairfield. OH 46014

Phone: (859) 261-6116

Curtent ($21;l,2{1)

30 Days $0.00

Description

60 Days $0.00

90 Days: $363.20

T-243 P012/012 F-312

Ace!#; Slatoolent Date:

Balance DUll Now:

DUE DATE:

6254 41112010 $324.00 511/2010.

]debits Credits Balance

Balance Forward »»»> $324.00

Balance Due: $324.00

- Estimated Insurance: $0.00

»»:»»>>> Balance Due Now; $3.24.00

Est, Insurance $0.00

On Contract $0.00

"

METROPOLE

JuJy 27,2009·

Dear Residents,

.. ; . Many of you have heard a rumor that. the MetropoJe· is about to be sold and that

• l

y~~!ose your home and p~s~jbly become homeless. T~ alleviate the fear and. worry

this false information may be causing, let us give you the facts.

We are negoti~ting.forthe Jl9ssible sale oUhe'buif~ing. aefore a sale could happen, there are several conditions, outside of our control. that need to be met. fH~ose conditions are met and the sale is ~p'proved, the law requires that you

.• wUJ receive ~t least a .one year notice, in writing. During that one-year period, the

[buyers would have to ·cOrnfnlt to a relocation 'program. Thro.ugh the pfalll ,they W{lufd ""?" fO.r each ~eSi~ent who stUl qualift~ for housing as~i~tance to b~ m~~ed to n~w

hOUSing with no rent Increase and no movmg costs. . .

, The qualifications re.quired for new housing are exactf), th.e same qualifications

that you presently meet in order to ·Iive,at the Metropole-. In .other words, the suggesfi~n that you wllf ''fall through the cracks" and become homeless Js· a gross exaggeration. On-on-one assistance would be provided to each resident to meet his or her particular needs-and situation ... ~.

We must emphasize again .that at this time, we do not know whether a sale will take place. This discus~jon is premature, but given the false infC!rmatfon. we felt it

. . \

necessary to reassure .our reside~ts~ For now • .it is business as usual at the Metropole.

Should the sale occur; we wUI follow up with a written announcement as welf as a meeting with residents to djs9U~S detalfs regarding the one-year rel~catign process.

If you have any questions, please contact Bill strite for further information •

. i-.

Exhibit D

. 609 Walnut Street, Cinclnn~tiJ Ohio 45202 (5lJ.) 241·9290 Fa.y {!

.

A

METROPOLE TENANT ASSOCIATION l'ETITIONTO HOD AND CITY OF CINCINNATI

The proposal to tum OUF homes into a hotel is an effort to rid people with disabilities and Afdcen-Amedcans from Downtown Cincinnati. Downtown Cincinnati is one of the few racially and economically integrated communities in the City of Ciuclnna1i. TUrning out home into a hotel will eliniinate the presence of affordable housing in Downtown Cinclllnati completely, The city's elite would like to force us from our homes-because we are elderly, disabled and p~~dOmina.tely African-American. This is clearly housing discrimination,

We ask that IR)D conduct a full investigation of this matter and deny any request

allowing the buyer to force us out of our home. .

20f5

Exhibit E

j ()/.? )015 .

47.

~~~~~~~~==~====~~~=

48. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 49. ~~~~~~~~~~~===--=~=

50.

~~~~~b-~===*~~~~~===

51. ~~~~~~~==~~~~ __ ~== 52.

~~~~~~~~~~~-=====~~

53. ~~~~~~========~~=======

54. ~~~~~====~~~~~========

55 ..

~~~~~~~~~=-~~====~==

56. ~~~~~~~~~~~~====

, 57. ~~~~~~~~~==~~~~===

58. ~~~~~~~~~~~~====~ 59.~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~====-= 60. ~~~~~~~=-~~~~====~=-

61 .. ~·f~~~~~~==-,,:u:1~====~=

62. ~~~~~~~~~=¥.~~~~~==

63. ~~~~~~~==~~~~=====

64. ~~~~~~~~==~~==~====== 65. ~~~~~~~~==~~~~====~

66.

~~~~~~~~==~~~========

67'f~~~~~~~~~~~========= 68. ~~~~~~-=====~~~==~-=~ 69.~~~~~~~==~~==~===-=

70. ~~~~~~~~~~~==========

71. ~~~~~~~~=-~~========= 72, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~== 73 . -1+i"~"'"f==Pf:7~ 74.

4 of 5

. : We ask that HOD conduct a full investigation of this matter and deny any request

ano~~:]t";o~ h~,----

~ame ~~:;t;p G/f}~jl .

2. ~~ \~~ ~~.'d_~~.

3: -

4. 5. 6. 7~ 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

. ~.

. . METROPOLE TENANT ASSOCIATION PETIDONTO mID AND CITY OF ciNCINNATI

The proposal to tum our homes into a hotel is an effort to rid people with disabilities and African-Americans from Downtown Cincinnati. Downtown ·Cincinnati is one of the few 'racially and 'economically integrated communities in the City, of Cincinnati. Tinning our home into a hotel will eliminate the presence of affordable houslng hi Downtown Ciricinnati completely. The ciJ;y's elite would like to forceusfrom our homes because weare elderly, disabled and predominately African-AmerlciU,1. This

is clearly housing discrimination. . , .

MJ) V, iF 11 K ·0 LCI f>F 7/1.;:5 . ($,£0 £3 t{ ~f /lA-c..q

~ h Il-A-- J) e 12.- )J$' iF 7 r- ~ .

I I

I

I

! i

AZEOTROPIC PARTNERS, LLC' 609 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

"

~oveD1ber3,2009

Marcus Flowers

609 Walnut Street, #824 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Flowers:

The Department of Housing and Urban .Development (HOD) subsidizes the rent ,of your apartment through the project-based Section 8 program. Federal law requires that owners' provide tenants with a one-year notification before the expiration of a Section 8 contract. The Section 8 contract that pays the government's share of your apartment rent at Metropole Apartments will expire on November 3,2010.

Although there will be no immediate change in your rental assistance, we are required to inform you of our intended actions when the contract expires one year from now.

This letter is to notify you that we do Dot intend to renew the current Section 8 contract when it expires.

Since we do not intend to renew this project-based contract upon its expiration, it is our understanding that, if Congress makes funds available (which it has in the past and is expected to in the future), the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide all eligible tenants residing in a Section 8 project-based, assisted unit with tenant-based assistance. Unlike the current project-based Section 8 contract, Section 8 vouchers are issued to the tenants and allows them to choose the place they wish to rent. The' Section 8, voucher program is administered by local Public Housing Authorities. Federal law allows you to elect to continue living at this property provided that the unit, the tent, and we, the owners, meet the requirements of the Section 8 tenant-based assistance program. As an Owner, we Will honor your right as a tenant to remain at the property on this basis as long as it continues to be offered as rental housing, provided that there is no cause for eviction under Federal; State or local, law.

You will also have the opportunity to choose another development or single family house in which to move provided that the new landlord will accept the voucher and the owner and the

unit meet Section 8 tenant- based program requirements. '

Exhibit F

Please remember that project-based Section 8rent~ assistance will continue to be provided on your behalf for one year. In addition, we may agree to a renewal of the projectbased contract with HUD, thus avoiding contract termination altogether.

!

!

i

Approximately four months (120 days) before the expiration of the Section 8 contract, , HUD requires that we confirm our final decision not to renew the contract Following this confirmation, you will be contacted by the local Public Housing Authority (PHA) to determine your household's eligibility for tenant-based assistance. If you intend to apply for- Section 8 . tenant-based rental assistance you should not move from your current unit until you have consulted with the local PHA about your eligibility for tenant-based assistance.

. If you have any questions or would 1~ information on the Section 8 Program, the following sources roay be of assistance.

Sincerely,

I I

I l

I

I

I

,

I

i

! !

!

I

, Contract Administrator (if applicable)

Name: Assisted Housing Services Corporation Telephone Number: 1;011 Free: 1-877-506-3552

HUD Field Office

Name: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Bonnie Spurling Telephone Number: .5.13-684-8786

HUDWeb

http://hud.gov click on "rental help,"

er: 513-432-2436

Telephone

cc: Local HUD Office/Contract Administrator Governor, State of Ohio

Mayor, City of Cincinnati

Cincinnati City Manager

Manner of Delivery: certified mail addressed to each tenant and other recipients shown' above; hand delivery to each residential unit; and posting in the building lobby, elevators and management office.

I

·1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful