News & Observer | newsobserver.com | 2008 NCAA Men's Bracket

newsobserver.com blogs

OrangeChat

How are we doing? If you have a question, complaint or suggestion about coverage of Orange and Chatham counties in The News & Observer and The Chapel Hill News, post your comments in this blog or e-mail us. Comments here may be reprinted in The News & Observer or Chapel Hill News.

Affordable housing reform

Bookmark and Share

Nearly two years after he first suggested it, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Executive Director Robert Dowling is still trying to convince the Chapel Hill Town Council to stop requiring developers to build so many affordable housing units and start accepting more cash instead. The town's planning staff is recommending that the council refer Dowling's petition to its affordable housing committee during tonight's Town Council meeting. Below, read a story from when Dowling first proposed this approach in January 2007.

 

By Jesse James DeConto

Staff Writer

CHAPEL HILL - When she bought her three-bedroom townhouse at Meadowmont, Evan Hirasawa would have preferred a single-family home for herself and her two children.

But she wasn't complaining. It only cost her $95,000, right in the middle of Meadowmont Village, with million-dollar townhouses a stone's throw away.

The local art teacher was among the first moderate-income buyers in the town's "inclusionary housing" program, which requires developers to make 15 percent of their homes affordable to households earning $30,000 to $50,000 a year.

"It's been really helpful to me and my family," Hirasawa said. 

Four years later, Meadowmont developer Roger Perry is planning another major project called East 54 on N.C. 54 near its intersection with U.S. 15/501.

Perry's affordable housing plan is challenging the town's inclusionary housing model.

In exchange for the town's approving high density -- half a million square feet on 11 acres -- Perry is offering to double the town's requirement: 30 percent affordable housing, or 60 out of 200 condos.

"This proposal is far and away the best affordable housing proposal that's ever been presented to this Town Council or any Town Council," said Robert Dowling, executive director of the nonprofit Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, which manages the inclusionary housing program.

Dowling proceeded to tell the Town Council to reject Perry's proposal.

"If we take all these units on, I can foresee really difficult problems," Dowling told the Town Council last month. "We're not Coldwell Banker. I have 1.5 people selling houses."

Dowling counts about 150 subsidized condominium units in the pipeline for construction over the next few years, with major building projects being planned downtown and along public transit corridors such as N.C. 54 and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

 

Those units would have to be managed by the land trust, which caps their future sales prices to ensure they remain affordable over time. The organization has five staff people to manage 125 existing homes.

"I'm a cautious person," Dowling said. "I'm not as brave as Roger Perry is."

Perry's company, East West Partners, will return to the Town Council on Feb. 26 for a final vote on the project, planned for the current site of the Best Western University Inn.

Dowling said the flood of condos would be harder to manage than single-family homes because condos are starter homes that few people, especially families, would live in for very long.

"They're going to turn over a lot," Dowling said. "That puts a lot of pressure on the organization."

Since they were built in 2003, seven out of 32 townhomes in Hirasawa's neighborhood have resold, one of theme twice.

"We don't plan to move, but I could see how it could be a steppingstone for some people," Hirasawa said. "They are on the small side."

Citing fear that Perry would build units the land trust couldn't sell, Dowling has suggested the town require the developer to build on 26 units -- 30 percent of the first phase of the project.

"Let's see how the land trust handles it," Dowling said. "I don't know the depth of the condo market."

Dolores Bailey, who also oversees development of affordable housing as executive director of Empowerment, Inc., made a similar argument in support of Greenbridge Development's plan to donate $525,000 in lieu of seven units that would be required by the town policy.

The plan for Greenbridge, which is also up for a vote Feb. 26, includes about 100 condos in the West End of downtown, seven of them artists' studios to satisfy the other half of the affordable housing quota.

"Everbody doesn't want to live in a condo," Bailey said. "Imagine the homes we could build for $500,000."

Dowling has likewise urged the council to accept cash from developers as a means of funding maintenance on the land trust's existing homes. 

At $75,000 per unit, Perry's payment in lieu of the 34 units would exceed $2.5 million.

Dowling projects the land trust will need about $2.8 million over the next 25 years to renovate its existing housing stock. Moderate-income homeowners simply don't have the money to maintain their own homes, especially costly items such as roofs, heating and cooling systems.

Dowling asked the council to consider taking payments in lieu of housing units to help fund the long-term maintenance, but the council resisted.

"We get one chance to get units built by the private sector," said Mayor Pro Tem Bill Strom.

 

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Maintenance, etc---for


Maintenance, etc---for every other homeowner, this is part of the cost of owning a home. If we have to subsidize the sales price, and then subsidize the repairs and maintenance, then what we are running is essentially a high end rental or "rent to own" program, not a true home ownership program. What is the purpose of an 'affordable housing" program? The value we place on "home ownership" versus "home affordability" is quite different. We think that home ownership gives someone a sense of permanence, helps them build wealth, and improves the character of neighborhoods by instilling pride in one's home and a sense of ownership in the community. . If what we are running is a high end "rent to own" system, you don't get those benefits. So if the program isn't helping people and the community to benefit in those ways, maybe it's time to change the paradigm. If what we are seeing is that the stock of "affordable" housing isn't selling, then what that means is that people who would qualify for the program do not themselves see the value. They are still choosing to purchase in Durham, Alamance, or Chatham counties. The question is WHY. I think part of it is that the available stock isn't what they want, and they don't see the value of going into partnership with the OCLT to own a home versus doing it on their own outside of Orange County.

Maintenance Dollars

I think what Robert Dowling was talking about is money to perform maintenance on units when they turn over,  This type of maintenance must be performed before you can turn the unit over.

Affordable Housing Maintenance Fund Task Force

The AHMF Task Force needs some members, information <a href="http://www.co.orange.nc.us/boards/indivbd.asp?BoardID=1258144695">here.</a>

The anticipated 20 year outlay is roughly $3M.  Yearly funding roughly tracks turnover of housing stock and base wear-n-tear.  Robert told me the model includes paint, HVAC, floor coverings, roofing and a few other big ticket items that reach their end-of-life at 10 to 20 years.

Inconsistent square footage rhetoric

As you might recall, Robert Dowling endorsed Lot #5's tiny affordable housing component ( 500 or less usable sq/ft. ) but, like Delores, complained about the mix and utility of other projects that actually had larger units.

I believe I was the first citizen asking Council to rework the size of Lot #5's units - units that are being built as part of our private/public partnership. I kept bringing up the issue until Council finally rebalanced the square footage in some units to make them what I called "more family friendly" (2 kids in a 480 sq/ft apartment?).

Anyway, I respectfully disagree with Robert that the goal shouldn't be maximizing square footage. I also think we need to re-evaluate what "affordable" means. Maybe one metric should be tied to our Town's staff or educator's income: affordable is what %35 of what the non-management staff can buy.

Here is what Robert had to say about Sept. 3rds approval of Carrboro's Butler (which provided in-lieu monies):

Developer Urban Ventures LLC will pay up to $100,000 for each of the other four units into the town's affordable housing fund.
The decision to take the money instead of the units was significant, said Robert Dowling, executive director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, which sells most of Carrboro and Chapel Hill's affordable housing.
Dowling has been asking for such payments for two years. His agency needs the money to help maintain existing affordable units and to hire staff as the agency's workload grows.
Besides, he and others say, the two towns' affordable housing policies -- a 15 percent requirement in Carrboro, a 15 percent guideline in Chapel Hill -- aren't working like they were supposed to.
To meet the requirement, developers are offering tiny units.
Urban Ventures had proposed 430-square-foot affordable studios, Dowling said.
"That's pretty small," he said.
One-bedroom affordable units in Greenbridge, 140 West Franklin, and East 54 -- all Chapel Hil projects -- are under 750 square feet, he said.
"Who is going to buy these units?" Dowling said. "Are they going to be teachers and reporters and social workers, or are they going to be grad students and post docs?"
If it's the latter, Dowling said, their owners will live there a couple of years and move on. The units will come back to the land trust to resell.
And that's another problem, he said.
The land trust is looking at close to 150 affordable units coming on the market, Dowling said. His agency, with five full-time and two part-time staffers, will have its hands full.
"I'm concerned about a successful program, not maximizing how many units we have," he said. "A successful program looks into the future."

Sept. 3rd, CHN http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/16578.html

I also look to the future and firmly believe that units now will serve our community better. If the problem is monies for staffing, maintenance, management, etc. we need to address that directly.

We might also need to diversify the management of our affordable housing stock - putting the majority of the eggs in Robert's basket is probably not a good longterm strategy.

There is a place for in lieu

I realize I might not have been completely clear on in lieu payments.  There are cases where it is appropriate.  My concern is that we are focusing on two ends of the spectrum - build or cash - instead of a comprehensive plan to deal with the wide spectrum of issues surrounding affordable housing (including what affordable means).

A major problem with affordable housing

is that we are usually locked into the one family-one house American Dream approach - McMcMansions. The banking & insurance industry also contribute to high costs. The Home Builders Association has us dog-trained to "need" certain products and desgns. The building codes (and code enforcement) pay no mind to issues of affordaility and seem designed to push costs higher (sometimes mindlessly, sometimes as part of the "HBA-realtor-materials supplier-energy utility complex"). Zoning laws preclude small homes and we rarely look at what the future will require of us - more communal-type co-housing arrangements.

These are some of the reasons that "affordable housing" may be the most ubiquitous campaign issue of our lifetimes - the issue gift that keeps giving & never gets solved.

Single family homes

Why should those individuals and/or families who qualify for "affordable" housing be restricted to multifamily? To me, we're setting them up as second class citizens by denying them the same opportunities that those who make the policies enjoy.

As for John Kramer's concerns about maintenance, I believe the problem is that those who are qualifying for affordable housing are not staying in their homes as long as was anticipated. While the plan was that owners would take care of their own maintenance, turnover is handing that financial burden off to the Land Trust as part of preparing the property for resale.

I'd like to see us take a hard look at the Land Trust model as it currently operates and see what other assumptions from the original goals are off course before making any policy changes. Hopefully that reassessment would include looking at the social dynamics of neighborhoods in which there are huge new single family homes with duplexes off to the side, and how those social dynamics are effecting other aspects of the program.

Terri Buckner??

I am not  "John Kramer" whoever that is, I am more commonly referred to as "Mo" in these parts, but I am not sure that someone such as yourself, who lives in the County but likes to pontificate about things in the towns that he/she has no financial or voting link to would understand such a distinction and thus felt obliged to spell it out in terms that you would comprehend.

 

To repeat, Elvis Boy, 77 is Mo' and no mo!

 

Adios, y vaya con Dios!

Oh well.....

Sorry I got you confused with someone else.

You're right that I have no voting interest in what happens within the towns, but I do have a financial interest. I also have a community interest which is more important IMHO. 

Right!

It is more important and your community interest makes a difference, Terri.  Of course, you have spent some time learning about the issues so that you can engage in a knowledgeable discussion, unlike those who would rather cast aspersions on people and condemn programs they know nothing about.

Thanks

For the personal attack.  Very classy.

But Will!

Your plan will not fill the coffers of the non-profits who run the "affordable hosing" circus ring around here. That is a no-no for the progressives, they must have funds to pay their board of directors, etc.

It never has been, nor will it ever be about real affordable housing. It has always been about paying some sort of conscience penalty for running working folks out of town.

At least now the non profits running this charade are admitting this and just looking for a straight hand out, rather than having to go through all that messy paperwork that results from actually providing affordable housing.

Just wondering:

Can you back up any of these ignorant allegations that you are making?  You seem to make a habit of tossing out these kind of charges, yet you never seem to produce any supporting evidence.  If you knew anything about what you are "writing" about, you would know that none of the volunteers who serve on these various boards receive any pay.

I also wondering just who you are and what you do that gives you the kind of insights that you post here.  Oops, that's right, you don't have the courage to sign your garbage, so I guess it should just be read for what it is.

Huh?

Dear "fhblack". whoever you are:

 

Back on June 3, 2008, Mr. Dowling of OCHLT got himself a nice little raise of 25%-  guess you missed that one?  It was in the local paper.  $75,000 is hardly what most people consider "no pay".

 

Not sure where you get your "facts". perhaps you should check them prior to posting?

 

 

 

The fact is, these non profits need cash to catch up on the maintenance of their existing properties. They are behind on the maintenance because they failed to properly budget for it. So now, they are asking developers to make up for their poor planning and budgeting.

Non of these payments-in-lieu do anything to add to the affordable housing pool, it is simply a bail out.
The entire existing set up seems questionable to me. It should be a government run organization, which would be under the bright light of public scrutiny.

Of course, no one in the existing set up would want to see that.

Wrong Again

Mr. Dowling of OCHLT is the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. He, like the other EDs of the non-profit organizations, has a board of directors.  You clearly stated "they must have funds to pay their board of directors."  They are unpaid volunteers; Mr. Dowling is an employee.

Again, check the record to see what payments-in-lieu funds have added to the housing stock, as you are again wrong.

Hope this helps your understanding of what you are writing about but know nothing about.

Frederick H. Black, Sr.

Thanks for the clarification

I was having trouble splitting those hairs.

 Regards,

Elvis Boy, 77

Square Footage Now

For the last 4 years, during two election cycles, I've said that our escalating acceptance of in lieu payments over building actual square footage is a problem with our affordable housing process.

If we can't fund the affordable housing program adequately without large infusions of in lieu monies, we have to reform the program, the way we underwrite it. If we can't manage a larger portfolio of housing stock, we have to, again, look at reforming management of the program. If we think that the character of the housing, condos (of which the Town itself is investing in at Lot #5) is inappropriate for the population, we have to rework our approach to be more flexible.

I'm struck by Delores Bailey's statement ""Everbody doesn't want to live in a condo. Imagine the homes we could build for $500,000" for two reasons. One, the developers of Greenbridge floated an idea to build affordable units off-site - a plan that was rejected. And, two, she subsequently endorsed the Lot #5 project with its component of affordable housing units - all condos.

At the time, I asked Council to consider more flexibility in the kind of housing offered by the Greenbridge developers. All the supporters of the project based their endorsements, to some extent, on the extraordinary qualities this project offered. The Council even created a special Downtown development zone, allowing the projects looming height and increased density, by justifying the unusual public good the project presented. Yet, when it came to having the flexibility to accept off-site housing - housing built now instead of possibly later, as was the case in the in lieu monies argument - they couldn't bridge the ideological gap.

Clearly it is time to rethink our approach to affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning will only increase the need to deal with the "in lieu" versus "square footage" dilemma.

To me, it's pretty straight forward. Housing built now is less costly. A program that can't manage a larger, more diverse portfolio of housing stock is not acceptable. Financing of the maintenance and management of the affordable housing program has to shift from in lieu monies.

Advertisements

A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company